Krrfi?~-'--' 


..s&r                 PRINCETON,  N.  J.                V*?V 

Purchased  by  the 
Mrs.  Robert  Lenox  Kennedy  Church  History  Fund 

BX    4917    .L87    1909 

L   utzow,    Franz   Heinrich 

Hieronymus   Valentin,    1849- 
The   life   &  times  of  Master 

.Tnhn     Hue 

THE    LIFE    &    TIMES 

OF 

MASTER    JOHN    HUS 


"'& 


*      DEC  I  5  1909 

THE    LIFE    &    TIMES  W- 


<&o 


OF 


"/GAL  ; 


MASTER  JOHN  HUS 


BY 


/ 


THE    COUNT    LUTZOW 

Hon.  D.Litt.  Oxon.,  Hon.  Ph.D.  Prag.,  Author  of 
A  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  Prague,  etc. 


WITH  ILLUSTRATIONS 


MCMIX 

LONDON:    J.   M.   DENT   &  CO. 
NEW  YORK  :  E.  P.  DUTTON  &  CO. 


All  rights  reserved 


PREFACE 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  that  it  is  not  without  diffidence 
that  I  attempt  to  give  an  account  of  the  life  and  times  of  John 
Hus.  So  much  has  been  written  on  the  great  subject  of  the 
Bohemian  reformation,  and  yet  so  little  that  is  satisfactory. 
Hus  has  often  been  described  as  a  martyr  and  as  a  forerunner 
of  the  German  reformation,  and  both  statements  are  to  a 
certain  extent  true.  It  has  equally  often  been  attempted  to 
blacken  the  memory  of  Hus,  frequently  by  the  most  unworthy 
means.  I  write  as  a  fervent  admirer  of  Hus,  both  as  an  enthu- 
siastic Bohemian  patriot  and  as  a  fervent  and  pious  Christian, 
whose  life-purpose  was  to  strive  for  a  return  to  the  conditions 
of  the  apostolic  church,  and  to  rescue  the  Church  of  Rome  from 
the  state  of  unspeakable  corruption  into  which  it  had  then 
fallen;  and  from  which,  partly  by  the  action  of  Hus,  it  has 
since  been  delivered.  It  is  no  part  of  my  task  to  attempt  to 
prove  that  Hus  was  perfect.  No  man,  indeed,  would  have 
resented  such  an  attempt  more  than  he,  who  in  his  writings 
constantly  refers  in  a  childlike  and  touching  manner  to  his — 
very  insignificant — shortcomings. 

The  very  fact  that  my  sympathy  is  entirely  with  Hus  has, 
I  hope,  been  to  me  an  inducement  to  sift  carefully  all  reliable 
evidence  that  may  be  contrary  to  him,  and  to  study  diligently 
the  writings  of  all  those  who  have  written  unfavourably  of  Hus. 
This  impartiality  appears  to  me  as  a  duty  for  those  who 
attempt,  as  historians,  to  pass  judgment  on  the  great  men  of 
bygone  days.     Not  one  of  these  great  men  has  been  judged 


vi  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

more  differently  than  Hus ;  and  recent  German  historians  have 
with  great  ingenuity  attempted  to  classify  the  writers  who 
have  dealt  with  the  life  of  the  greatest  man  who  belonged  to 
the  Czech  or  Bohemian  race.     It  is  sufficient  to  note  here  that 
these  writers  are  either  favourable  to  the  Church   of  Rome 
and  therefore,  though  often  with  great  limitations,  hostile  to 
Hus,  or  opponents  of  Rome,  who  revere  in  him  one  of  the 
earliest  champions  of  religious  liberty  and  one  of  the  fore- 
runners of  the  German  reformers.     This  division  may  appear 
obvious,  but  it  is  far  less  absolute  than  might  be  imagined. 
Thus  Romanist  writers  who  belong  to  the  Czech  or  Bohemian 
nationality  have  often  written  somewhat  favourably  of  Hus. 
Though  condemning  those  of  his  views — far  less  numerous 
than  has  often  been  thought — which  are  opposed  to  Rome, 
these  writers  have  done  thorough  justice  to  the  beauty  of  his 
truly  saintly  character,  and  they  have  admitted  that  it  was 
the  virtuous  indignation  caused  in  him  by  the  immoral  life 
led   by   many — and   principally   the   higher — ecclesiastics    of 
the  Roman  Church  that  induced  him  to  denounce  that  church 
in  very  strong  terms. 

On  the  other  hand,  Protestant  German  writers  have,  prin- 
cipally within  the  last  years,  violently  attacked  the  memory  of 
Hus.  They  saw  in  him  mainly  the  undaunted  champion  of 
the  oppressed  Czech  or  Bohemian  nationality.  It  was  found 
easier  in  Germany  to  render  justice  to  Hus  at  a  time  when  the 
national  cause  for  which  he  struggled  so  manfully  appeared  to 
be  doomed,  than  it  is  now,  when  the  Bohemian  language, 
which  owes  so  much  to  Hus,  has  attained  a  development  that 
was  undreamt  of  a  century  ago.  Incidentally,  and  no  doubt 
unintentionally,  these  German  writers  have  done  great  service 
to  the  fame  of  Hus  by  drawing  attention  to  the  great  part 


PREFACE 


vn 


which  he  played  as  a  Bohemian  patriot.  It  was  the  word 
of  Hus,  as  well  as  the  sword  of  Zizka,  which  preserved  the 
autonomy  and  the  national  character  of  Bohemia,  which  at 
the  period  of  the  Hussite  wars  were  seriously  menaced  by  the 
numerous  German  colonists  whom  the  policy  of  the  Premy- 
slide  princes  had  established  in  the  Bohemian  towns.  It  will, 
of  course,  be  my  duty  to  point  out  the  great  part  that  Hus 
played  as  a  Bohemian  patriot.  He  believed  as  firmly  as  the 
Bohemian  patriots  of  the  present  day  that  the  nation  as  an 
individuality  stands  and  falls  with  its  language.  Hus  devoted 
much  time  and  care  to  the  development  of  that  language, 
and  a  little-known  part  of  his  activity  also  consisted  in  his 
endeavour  to  introduce  into  the  churches  the  singing  by  lay- 
men of  hymns  in  the  national  language. 

The  fact  that  the  movement  in  favour  of  church-reform, 
which  had  in  England  found  expression  in  the  writings  of 
Wycliffe,  found  in  Bohemia  a  particularly  fruitful  soil,  was  a 
consequence  of  the  condition  and  past  history  of  the  country. 
Bohemia  had  first  received  the  Christian  teaching  from  Greek 
monks  of  Salonika,  and  even  after  it  began  to  form  part  of  the 
Western  Church,  Roman  institutions  penetrated  into  the 
country  gradually  and  slowly.  Thus  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy  was  introduced  into  Bohemia  later  than  into  most 
countries,  and  it  seems  probable — though  this  is  a  most  con- 
troversial matter — that  communion  in  the  two  kinds  continued 
to  be  customary  there  up  to  a  late  period,  perhaps  up  to  the 
beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century.  It  also  requires  mention 
that,  in  consequence  of  its  geographical  position,  Bohemia  for 
a  long  time  suffered  less  from  the  extortions  of  the  Roman 
pontiffs  than  many  other  countries.  Only  when,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  schism,  the  rival  popes  found  that  the  number 


viii  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

of  countries  from  which  they  could  derive  funds  was  diminish- 
ing, the  claims  of  Rome  on  Bohemia  became  more  urgent  and 
more  frequent.  The  discontent  caused  by  the  rapacity  of  the 
rival  pontiffs,  whose  violent  controversies  did  not  raise  the 
Western  Church  in  the  esteem  of  the  Bohemian  people,  found 
a  centre  in  the  University  of  Prague.  Under  the  influence  of 
this  university,  a  school  of  theologians  sprung  up  who  are 
known  as  the  forerunners  of  Hus.  These  writers  long  re- 
mained almost  unknown,  and  it  is  only  since  the  revival  of 
Bohemian  literature  in  the  nineteenth  century  that  their 
works  have  again  begun  to  attract  attention.  Even  now 
much  work  has  to  be  done  and  many  MSS.  remain  imprinted; 
still  it  can  already  be  stated  that  recent  research  has  thrown 
much  new  light  on  Hus  and  the  Hussite  movement.  I  have 
in  this  work  endeavoured  to  give  a  resume  of  the  studies  of 
modern  Bohemian  writers  on  this  movement.  These  works, 
mostly  written  in  the  national  language,  have  by  no  means 
received  hitherto  the  attention  which  they  well  deserve. 

It  may  be  here  stated  that  these  writings  prove  clearly 
the  existence  in  Bohemia  of  a  strong  national  movement  in 
favour  of  church-reform,  which  depended  by  no  means  entirely 
on  foreign  influences.  As  Dr.  Kybal  recently  wrote  in  his 
valuable  work  on  Matthew  of  Janov,  the  greatest  of  the  fore- 
runners of  Hus:  "  The  view  that  Hussitism  is  merely  artifici- 
ally fostered  Wycliffism  appears  to  me  logically  and  historically 
as  nonsense."  x  It  would  be  invidious  to  attribute  to  racial 
antagonism  the  recent  attempts  of  German  writers  to  depre- 
ciate the  importance  of  Hus.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  the  German 
writers,  who  recently  have  extolled  Wycliffe  at  the  expense  of 
Hus,  have  attributed  to  the  English  divine  greater  originality 

1  Dr.  Kybal  uses  the  English  word  "  nonsense." 


PREFACE 


IX 


and  greater  depth  of  thought  than  is  generally  attributed  to 
him  by  his  countrymen. 

I  have  under  the  heading  "  Bibliography  "  given  a  large 
though  by  no  means  complete  list  of  the  authorities  which  I 
have  consulted,  and  specially  drawn  attention  to  the  writings 
of  the  modern  Bohemian  historians,  on  whose  labours  this 
work  is  mainly  based.  I  wish  to  express  my  particular  thanks 
to  Dean  Miiller  of  Herrnhut,  who  has  kindly  forwarded  me  a 
photograph  of  the  portrait  of  Hus — reproduced  here — which 
has  been  preserved  by  the  community  of  Herrnhut. 


CONTENTS 


Church  of  Rome 


Preface      ....... 

I.  Europe  and  Bohemia  at  the  Time  of  Hus 

II.  The  Forerunners  of  Hus 

III.  The  Youth  of  Hus     .... 

A  IV.  The  Beginning  of  Hus's  Opposition  to  the 

V.  Hus  as  Leader  of  His  Nation  . 

VI.  Hus  in  Exile      ..... 

VII.  Hus  at  Constance      .... 

VIII.  The  Trial  and  Death  of  Hus   . 

IX.  Hus  as  a  Bohemian  Patriot 

X.  The  Writings  of  Hus — Portraits  of  Hus 

XI.  Jerome  of  Prague      .... 

XII.  The  Hussite  Wars      .... 

Appendix — 

Contemporary  Bohemian  Account  of  the  Death  of  Hus 

Bibliography      ........ 

Index  ......... 


i 

17 

63 

93 

114 

167 

20S 

244 

293 
310 

321 

335 

373 
383 
3S7 


Xi 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


Portrait  of  John  Hus  (Photogravure)     ....  Frontispiece 

,,    King  Vexceslas  of  Bohemia  (Photogravure)  facing  page     82 
,,    Pope  John  XXIII.   (Photogravure)        .  .  96 


,,    Emperor  Sigismund  (Photogravure) 
Plan  of  Constance  at  Time  of  Council 
Distribution  of  Food  at  Constance  during  the  Council 
Burning  of  John  Hus  ...... 

Scattering  Hus's  Ashes         ...... 

Medals  of  John  Hus    ....... 


136 
182 

1S4 
2S4 
284 
318 


THE    LIFE    AND    TIMES    OF 
MASTER    JOHN    HUS 

CHAPTER  I 

EUROPE   AND   BOHEMIA  AT  THE   TIME   OF   HUS 

Hostility  to  the  Church  of  Rome  is  almost  as  ancient  as  the 
prosperity  of  that  church.  The  fabled  "  donation  of  Con- 
stantine,"  the  subject  of  the  lamentations  of  Dante  and  so 
many  other  mediaeval  writers,  certainly  denotes  a  landmark 
in  the  history  of  the  church.  The  suffering  early  church  has, 
in  the  Christian  martyrs,  given  to  humanity  some  of  its  noblest 
types,  and  the  comparison  of  Hus  to  these  sufferers  frequently 
recurs  in  the  writings  of  the  Bohemians.  When  Constantine 
granted  to  the  church,  not  indeed  sovereign  power,  but  great 
authority  and  riches,  a  very  sudden  change  took  place.  The 
contrast  between  the  martyrs  of  the  year  313  and  the  wealthy 
and  worldly  prelates  who,  under  imperial  presidency,  discussed 
matters  of  dogma  at  Nicaea  in  325  is  very  great.  Henceforth 
the  power  and  influence  of  the  church  constantly  increase  and 
the  conception  of  the  priest  as  an  individual  who,  by  virtue 
of  his  office,  is  superior  to  the  layman,  becomes  more  and  more 
widely  spread.  As  in  many  cases  the  life  of  the  layman  was 
simpler,  more  moral,  more  virtuous  than  that  of  the  priest, 
this  assumption  caused  great  animosity  against  the  clergy. 
Claims  such  as  that  of  receiving  communion  more  frequently, 
and  of  partaking  of  the  sacrament  in  the  two  kinds — a  favour 
not  granted  to  laymen — were  constantly  brought  forward 
by  the  priests,  particularly  in  Bohemia.  These  pretentions, 
indeed,  played  a  very  great  part  in  the  Bohemian  movement 
for  church-reform,   for  the  Bohemians  considered  them  as 

A 


2  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

indicating  an  ever-increasing  endeavour  on  the  part  of  the 
priests  to  raise  new  barriers  between  themselves  and  those 
who  were  not  in  holy  orders.  Thence  sprang  the  fervent 
devotion  of  the  Bohemians  to  the  chalice  which  has  surprised 
many  writers,  and  has  exposed  the  Bohemians  to  the  ridicule 
of  both  ultramontanes  and  agnostics  ever  since  the  days  of 
Hus.  To  the  Hussites  the  chalice  was  an  emblem  signifying 
the  equality  of  all  true  Christians. 

The  ideal  object  of  all  mediaeval  opponents  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  was  a  return  to  the  simplicity  of  the  primitive  church, 
and  the  poverty  of  the  clergy  which  that  return  was  considered 
to  imply.  All  those  who,  in  mediaeval  times,  wished  to  rescue 
the  church  from  the  evil  plight  into  which  it  had  fallen — 
whether  they  remained  in  the  Church  of  Rome  or  were  ex- 
cluded from  it — felt  and  expressed  profound  veneration  for 
poverty.  As  Cardinal  Newman  writes:1  "It  will  not  be 
denied  that,  according  to  the  Scripture  view  of  the  church, 
though  all  are  admitted  into  her  pale,  and  the  rich  inclusively, 
yet  the  poor  are  her  members  with  a  peculiar  suitableness 
and  by  a  special  right.  Scripture  is  ever  casting  slurs  upon 
wealth  and  making  much  of  poverty." 

It  has  often  been  noted  that,  during  the  long  struggle  between 
the  popes  and  the  rulers  of  Germany,  known  as  the  contest 
about  investitures,  the  German  emperors  very  rarely  appealed 
to  the  popular  feeling  in  their  contest  with  the  Roman  pontiffs. 
We  find,  of  course,  an  exception  in  the  case  of  Frederick  II., 
who,  after  his  deposition  by  Pope  Innocent  IV.  at  the  Council 
of  Lyons  in  1245,  appealed  to  the  sovereigns  of  Europe 
against  the  pontiff.2  This  case  is,  however,  an  isolated  one, 
and  though  the  victory  of  the  papacy  over  Germany  cannot  be 

1  Cardinal  Newman,  Historical  Sketches,  vol.  i.  p.  341,  ed.  of  1894. 

8  In  the  course  of  this  letter  the  emperor  writes:  "  Semper  fuit  nostrae 
voluntatis  intentio  clericos  cujusumque  ordinis  ad  hoc  inducere,  et  praecipue 
ad  ilium  statum  reducere  ut  tales  persevereut  in  fine  quales  fuerunt  in  ecclesia 
primitiva  apostolicam  vitam  ducentes  et  humilitatem  dominicam  imitantes. 
(Huillard  Breholles,  Historia  diplomatica  Frederici  Secundi,  quoted  by 
Lechler.) 


EUROPE  AND  BOHEMIA  3 

considered  a  complete  one,  the  tendency  to  increase  the 
authority  and  powers  of  the  pope  and  of  the  upper  ranks  of 
the  Roman  hierarchy  at  the  expense  of  the  parish-priests 
and  laymen  continued,  with  brief  interruptions,  up  to  the  time 
of  Hus.  The  Hussite  movement,  indeed,  can  be  considered 
as  the  first  serious  obstacle  which  confronted  the  extreme  -j 
autocratic  tendencies  of  Rome.  As  has  been  often  pointed 
out,  these  tendencies  were  greatly  aided  by  the  development 
of  the  study  of  canonic  law.  These  codes,  founded  on  the 
writings  of  the  jurists  of  imperial  Rome,  who  maintained 
the  absolute  and  unlimited  power  of  the  sovereign,  strongly 
favoured  the  claims  of  the  popes  to  a  similar  unrestricted 
authority.  The  excessive  study  of  canonic  law  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  study  of  the  Bible  greatly  displeased  those  who 
wished  the  church  to  be  poor  and  pure.  One  of  the  earliest 
Bohemian  reformers,  Matthew  of  Janov,  has  expressed  himself 
strongly  on  this  subject.1 

In  close  connection  with  the  papal  claim  of  unrestricted 
authority  was  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  sacraments 
when  dispensed  by  unworthy  priests.  It  is  difficult  to  overrate 
the  importance  of  this  question;  for  if  it  was  admitted  that 
immoral  or  dishonest  priests  could  not  validly  administer  the 
sacraments,  the  whole  system  of  the  papal  hierarchy  ceased 
to  be  sustainable.  The  popular  mind  was  far  more  agitated 
by  questions  such  as  these  than  by  the  subtleties  of  dogmatic 
controversy  on  which  later  writers  have  laid  so  great  a  stress. 

As  already  mentioned,  the  rulers  of  Germany  had,  during 
their  prolonged  struggle  with  papacy,  entirely  confined  them- 
selves to  endeavours  to  limit  the  influence  of  the  popes  on  the 
pohtics  of  Germany.     If  we  except  the  belated  attempt  of 

1  He  writes:  "  Magis  nunc  sunt  in  precio  doctrine  et  studium  eorum  que 
vulgo  jura  canonica  dicuntur  quam  studium  biblie,  prophetarum  et  evangeli- 
orum  et  multo  pinquiores  transferunt  ad  studendum  jura  et  leges  quam 
sanctam  theologiam  et  studentes  talium  legum  et  doctrinarum  humanarum 
magis  et  cicius  promoventur  quam  scribe  et  docti  in  lege  Jesu  Christi  et 
theologia."  (Mattheas  de  Janov,  Regulae  Veteris  et  Novi  Testatrienti-  I 
.have  preserved  the  spelling  as  printed  by  Dr.  Kybal  from  the  MS.) 


4  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Frederick  II.,  nothing  was  done  to  arrest  the  development  of 
the  Roman  hierarchy  in  an  ever-increasingly  absolutist  sense. 
The  German  rulers  also  made  but  slight  attempts  to  enlist 
to  their  side  the  popular  feeling  then  strongly  opposed  to  the 
Roman  hierarchy,  many  of  whose  members  were  believed  by 
the  people  to  be  haughty,  avaricious,  and  devoid  of  all  morality. 

In  the  subsequent  struggle  between  the  papacy  and  the 
kings  of  France,  matters  were  different.  Writers  such  as  John 
of  Paris  and  Egydius  Colonna,  Archbishop  of  Bourges,  strongly 
opposed  the  papal  claims,  and  the  latter  went  so  far  as  to  deny 
to  the  pontiff  all  right  to  temporal  power.1  In  this  struggle 
the  kings  of  France  were  victorious,  and  it  was  one  of  the 
results  of  their  victory  that  the  papal  court  was  transferred 
to  Avignon,  a  city  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  French 
territory,  and  which  was  under  the  rule  of  a  relation  of  the 
King  of  France.  During  this  struggle  between  papacy  and  the 
rulers  of  France,  the  University  of  Paris  played  a  very  great 
part,  and  it  became  for  a  time  the  central  authority  in  France 
on  questions  of  theology;  its  position  was  somewhat  similar 
to  that  of  the  University  of  Prague  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Hussite  wars.  The  University  of  Paris  thus  acquired  great 
fame  and  students  flocked  to  it  from  all  parts  of  Europe. 
Among  them  was  Matthew  of  Janov,  one  of  the  earliest 
Bohemian  church-reformers,  whose  name  will  be  frequently 
met  in  these  pages. 

The  successful  struggle  of  France  against  papacy  was  no 
doubt  one  of  the  causes  of  the  energetic  resistance  offered  to 
Rome  by  Louis  of  Bavaria,  King  of  the  Germans.  A  man  of 
moderate  intelligence,  he  entirely  overlooked  the  immense 
difference  between  the  position  of  a  ruler  of  Germany,  where 

1  Egydius  writes:  "  Tertio  declarandum  est  quod  Christus  in  institutione 
spiritualis  potestatis  nullum  commisit  vel  potius  promisit  Dominium  terre- 
norum.  .  .  .  Ecce  Christus  Jesus,  Rex  Regum  Dominus  dominantium  regale 
fugit  dominium  et  fastuosum  fastigium.  Iqitur  qua  ratione  vel  autoritate 
vicarius  ejus  vindicabit  sibi  culmen  vel  nomen  Regiae  dignitatis  ?  "  (Goldast., 
Monorchia  Imperii  Romani,  torn.  ii.  p.  95  and  fl.) 


EUROPE  AND  BOHEMIA  5 

the  local  potentates  were  ever  increasing  their  power,  and  that 
of  a  king  of  France — a  country  in  which  even  then  a  contrary, 
that  is  to  say,  a  centralist  tendency,  began  to  appear.  As  had 
been  the  case  in  France,  in  Germany  also,  the  sovereign  found 
able  literary  men  who  devoted  much  talent  and  erudition  to 
the  defence  of  Louis  of  Bavaria.  Such  men  were  Marsiglio  of 
Padua,  John  of  Jandun,  William  of  Occam,  and  others.1  If, 
on  the  whole,  Louis's  struggle  with  papacy  may  be  considered 
as  having  been  unsuccessful,  this  cannot  be  entirely  attributed 
to  his  incompetence,  but  to  a  certain  extent  also  to  the  extreme 
vehemence  of  his  literary  allies,  which  alienated  many  mode- 
rate-minded men.  These  were  fully  aware  of  the  necessity 
for  church-reform — no  right-minded  man  at  that  time  could 
fail  to  perceive  it — but  they  objected  to  the  revolutionary 
character  of  some  of  the  writings  of  Louis's  allies.  This  applies 
particularly  to  (Marsiglio  of  Padua's  Defensor  Pacisj  In  this  -f— • 
strange  work  almost  all  the  subsequent  attacks  on  papacy  are 
foreshadowed,  and  it  has,  as  Neander  has  written,  already 
what  may  be  called  a  "  Protestant  "  character.  The  Defensor 
is  one  of  the  most  important  works  that  belong  to  the  Middle 
Ages.  It  contains  the  germ  not  only  of  Protestantism,  but  also 
of  all  those  liberal  and  democratic  views  that  only  attained  their 
full  development  centuries  later.  I  shall  here,  however,  as  far 
as  the  necessary  coherence  of  my  work  permits,  limit  myself 
to  outlining  that  part  of  Marsiglio's  work  in  which  he  expresses 
opinions  similar  to  those  of  Hus  and  the  other  Bohemian 
reformers.  Marsiglio  of  Padua,  born  in  the  city  of  that  name 
about  the  year  1270,  studied  for  a  considerable  time  at  the 
University  of  Paris  and  was,  in  1312,  rector  of  that  university. 
It  is  stated  that  in  Paris  he  fell  under  the  influence  of  William 
of  Occam.  They  were  men  of  about  the  same  age,  but  it  is 
probable — though  the  dates  of  the  works  of  both  writers  are 
uncertain — that  Occam  expressed  disagreement  with  the  papal 

1  The  best  account  of  the  lives  and  writings  of  these  men  is  still  that  given 
by  Dr.  Riezler  in  his  brilliant  work,  Die  Liter ■arischen  Widersacher  der  Pdpste. 


6  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

rule  at  an  earlier  period  than  Marsiglio.  The  latter  appears 
also  at  this  period  already  to  have  made  the  acquaintance 
of  several  Italian  and  German  scholars — mostly  monks  belong- 
ing to  the  order  of  the  minorites — who  afterwards  became  his 
allies  when  he  undertook  to  defend  the  cause  of  King  Louis 
against  papal  agression.  Marsiglio,  whose  views  were  on  most 
subjects  entirely  opposed  to  those  then  generally  accepted  by 
the  Roman  Church,  appears  to  have  at  this  period  already 
incurred  the  suspicion  of  heresy.  It  was  at  Paris  that,  in  con- 
junction with  his  colleague,  John  of  J  an  dun,  he  composed  his 
masterpiece,  the  Defensor  Pacis.  It  was  reported  that  the  two 
scholars  had  written  the  book  in  the  space  of  two  months. 
To  all  those  who  have  even  a  superficial  acquaintance  with  the 
Defensor  this  can  only  mean  that  it  was  during  that  time 
that  they  gathered  together  and  shaped  into  a  unity  the  results 
of  many  years  of  study.  With  this  newly-written  book  as  an 
introduction,  Marsiglio  and  Jandun  proceeded  to  the  court  of 
King  Louis,  who  was  then  residing  at  Nurnberg. 

As  Dr.  Riezler  has  written,  the  Defensor  is  one  "  of  those 
books  that  have  been  more  praised  than  read."  The  reason  is 
not  far  to  seek.  The  constant  repetitions,  the  incessant  minute 
definitions,  and  all  the  armoury  of  mediaeval  scholasticism 
render  the  book  most  difficult  and  tedious  to  read.  The 
medievalism  of  the  form  of  the  book  is  the  more  striking 
when  we  note  how  very  modern  are  the  ideas  which  it  contains. 
After  referring  to  the  necessity  of  peace  in  the  world,  a  wish 
from  which  Marsiglio  derived  the  name  of  his  book,  the  author 
first  gives  a  definition  of  the  state,  founded  on  Aristotle,  in 
accordance  with  whom  he  also  enumerates  the  different  forms  of 
government.  Every  state  should  be  governed  by  laws,  and 
all  citizens,  with  the  exception  of  foreigners,  bondsmen,  and 
women,  should  act  as  legislators.  The  prince,  being  human, 
cannot  be  considered  as  being  infallible,  and  he  should  there- 
fore be  controlled  in  his  actions  by  the  legislators.  In  the 
last — nineteenth — chapter  of  the  first  part,  Marsiglio  raises  the 


EUROPE  AND  BOHEMIA  y 

question  why  this  system,  which  would  ensure  peace,  cannot 
be  carried  out.  The  answer  is:  Because  of  the  extreme  power  -J— 
which,  since  the  donation  of  Constantine,  the  church  has 
acquired,  and  because  of  the  interference  of  the  clergy  in 
temporal  matters.  This  leads  to  the  second  part,  which  is 
far  more  important  for  the  study  of  Hus,  whose  ideas  Marsiglio 
here  frequently  anticipates.  In  this  part  the  author  deals 
with  papacy,  priesthood,  and  their  relations  to  the  temporal 
power.  Marsiglio  begins  by  denning  the  conception  "  church  " 
(ecclesia),  which  according  to  him  can  be  described  as  being  the 
community  of  all  who  believe  in  Christ,  be  they  priests  or  lay-  » 
men.  The  following  chapters  deal  with  the  authority  of  the 
pope  to  act  as  judge  and  ruler.  By  means  of  a  vast  array  of 
biblical  passages  quoted  in  the  manner  usual  in  the  scholastic 
school,  the  writer  endeavours  to  prove  that  the  pope  has  no 
legislative  or  punitive  power  over  laymen,  or  even  over  priests, 
except  so  far  and  so  long  as  it  is  granted  to  him  by  the  temporal 
authorities.  In  chapter  seven,  Marsiglio  proceeds  to  dispute 
the  papal  right  to  excommunicate  temporal  sovereigns  or 
officials — a  power  that  the  popes  had  during  their  prolonged 
struggles  with  the  German  and  French  sovereigns  frequently 
misused.  The  right  of  excommunication,  according  to  Mar-^_ 
siglio,  belongs  only  to  the  whole  Christian  community  or  to  a 
general  council  representing  it.  Marsiglio  then  expresses  dis- 
approval of  the  exemption  of  the  clergy  from  temporal  juris- 
diction, a  rule  that  then  and  for  many  years  afterwards  was 
universally  accepted.  He  next  denies  the  power  of  the  popes 
to  inflict  temporal  punishment  on  heretics.  Such  men,  he 
writes,  should  be  punished  by  the  civil  power,  but  only  if  their 
conduct  is  also  in  opposition  to  civil  law.  After  these  deduc- 
tions— of  which  I  have  here  only  given  a  brief  outline — 
limiting  in  many  respects  the  then  generally  admitted  powers 
of  Rome,  Marsiglio  devotes  the  following  chapters  to  a  definition 
of  apostolic  poverty.  Like  all  antagonists  of  papacy,  he  lays 
great  stress  on  this  point,  which,  in  consequence  of  the  luxury, 


8  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

immorality,  and  avarice  of  the  clergy  of  that  time,  was  always 
before   the   mind   of  all  thoughtful  men.     Christ,    Marsiglio 
writes,  did  not  sanction  this  pride  and  avarice;   He,  though 
it  was  in  His  power   to    appear  in    the   world  as    a  great 
king,  yet  preferred  poverty.     Marsiglio  then  studies  the  con- 
stitution of  the  church;   like  many  other  church-reformers  he 
declares   that   the   distinction   between   bishops   and   priests 
(presbyteros)  does  not  go  back  to  the  time  of  Christ,  but  was 
established  far  later.1     In  chapter  seventeen,  which  treats  of 
the  "  authority  by  whom  bishops  and  other  priests  and  servants 
of  the  church  should  be  appointed,"  Marsiglio  declares  that 
Christ  alone  is  the  Head  of  the  church.2     The  apostles  were 
consecrated  by  Christ  Himself,  and  the  apostles  ordained  their 
immediate  successors.     Afterwards  the  priests  were  chosen  by 
the  community  of  the  faithful,  or  by  persons  delegated  by  them. 
The  writer  then  maintains  the  unity  of  the  church,  which  can 
'  have  but  one  creed  founded  exclusively  on  the  teaching  of 
Scripture.     Scripture  undoubtedly  requires  interpretation,  and 
we  cannot  accept  any  other  interpreter  than  a  universal  council 
inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost.     No  such  authority  can  be  claimed 
by  the  popes,  who  have  frequently  erred  and  even  fallen  under 
the  suspicion  of  heresy.     Marsiglio  then  again  refers  to  the 
gradual  development  of  the  papal  primacy.     Beginning,   as 
was  customary,  with  the  donation  of  Constantine,  he  notes  how 
the  power  of  the  Roman  bishops,  and  with  it  the  self-assertion 
of  the  pontiffs  in  their  relations  to  temporal  rulers,  continued 
uninterruptedly  to  increase.     After  strongly  insisting  on  the 
depravation  of  the  papal  court  and  of  the  higher  ecclesiastics, 

1  Compare  Hus,  De  Ecclesia,  chapter  xv. :  "  Tunc  autem  non  ordinaverat 
(Deus)  nisi  Diaconos  et  Presbyteros,  tunc  etiam  idem  presbyter  erat  et 
episcopus,  ut  ait  Hieronymus  ut  et  patet  ex  texto  Apostoli.  .  ."." 

a  The  passage  is  so  important  that  it  may  be  given  in  Marsiglio's  own  words: 
"  Expedit  narrare  primum  institutionis  et  determinationis  episcoporum  seu 
presbyterorum  modum  circa  statum  et  initium  ecclesiae  primitivae  unde 
cetera  postmodum  derivata  sunt.  Horum  autem  omnium  principium 
accipiendum  est  a  Christo  qui  caput  est  et  petra  super  quam  fundata  est 
ecclesia  catholica  secundum  quod  dixit  Apostolus  ad  Ephesios."  {Defensor 
Pads,  ii.  chap,  xvii.) 


EUROPE  AND  BOHEMIA  9 

who  despised  theological  studies  while  they  cherished  the  legists 
who  were,  through  their  knowledge  of  canonic  law,  able  to 
support  the  unjustified  claims  of  the  priesthood,  Marsiglio 
proceeds  to  discuss  the  conflict  then  raging  between  papacy 
and  his  patron,  King  Louis.  It  is  difficult  to  overrate  the 
historical  importance  of  the  Defensor  Pads.  Many  subsequent 
church-reformers  have,  perhaps  unknowingly,  borrowed  from 
him ;  for  the  ideas  contained  in  the  Defensor  seem  to  have  been 
so  generally  shared  by  the  thinkers  of  the  time  that  they  had 
almost  become  common  property.  As  regards  Hus,  Dr.  Lenz 
has,  writing  on  the  treatise  De  Ecclesia  of  Hus,  declared — 
rightly  from  his  standpoint  as  a  Roman  Catholic  priest — that 
many  statements  contained  in  the  treatise  De  Ecclesia  had 
already  been  declared  heretical  when  Pope  John  XXII. ,  in 
1327,  decreed  that  the  Defensor  Pads  was  a  work  "  false, 
heretical,  and  contrary  to  Scripture."  x 

The  writings  of  William  of  Occam  also  express  views  on  the 
government  of  the  church  and  the  power  of  the  pope  which 
anticipate  those  of  Wycliffe  and  Hus.  Occam's  work  was 
written  during  the  pontificate  of  John  XXII.,  who,  mainly 
from  political  motives,  and  through  the  influence  of  France, 
waged  a  bitter  and  prolonged  war  against  Germany.  Though 
himself  accused,  not  entirely  without  foundation,  of  professing 
heretical  views,2  John  XXII.  expanded  the  pretensions  of  the 
papal  see  in  a  manner  that  none  of  his  predecessors  had 
attempted.  Occam  writes  as  a  strong  defender  of  the  authority 
of  temporal  rulers.  The  pope,  he  declares,  has  no  right  to 
secular  authority.  Christ  neither  exercised  nor  claimed  such  a 
power.3 

1  Prof.  Dr.  Lenz,  Uaeni  Mistra  J  ana  Husi  (The  Teaching  of  John  Hus),  p.  48. 

1  It  is  beyond  the  purpose  of  this  work  to  enter  into  this  matter.  Pope 
John  XXII.  was  accused  of  having  said  that  it  was  only  after  the  day  of 
judgment  that  the  chosen  enter  heaven. 

*  "  Papa  non  est  magis  exemptus  a  jurisdictione  imperatoris,  quam  fuit 
Christus,  sed  Christus  in  quantum  homo  mortalis  subjectus  fuit  jurisdictioni 
imperatoris,  ergo  et  Papa  modo  simili,  et  par  consequens  imperator  est  judex 
ordinarius  Domini  Papae."  ("  Ockam  Dialogus,"  p.  50,  in  Goldastus, 
Monarchia  Imperii  Romani,  vol.  ii.) 


r 


id  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

This  brief  note  on  the  state  of  Europe  about  the  time  of  the 
birth  of  Hus  is  in  many  respects  applicable  to  Bohemia.  Yet 
the  geographical  and  ethnographical  position  of  the  country 
and  its  history  placed  Bohemia  in  a  position  that  was  some- 
what different  from  that  of  Western  Europe.  The  country 
first  received  Christianity  from  the  East,  and  though  it  after- 
wards acknowledged  the  rule  of  Rome — forming  at  first  part 
of  the  archdiocese  of  Maintz  in  Germany,  and  being  since  the 
time  of  Charles  IV.  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  archbishop 
of  Prague — yet  it  is  certain  that  many  of  the  rites  and  regula- 
tions of  Rome  were  accepted  in  Bohemia  later  than  in  most 
European  countries.  Celibacy  of  the  clergy  became  general 
at  a  late  period  and  very  gradually.  Communion  in  the  two 
kinds  continued  to  be  customary  up  to  the  fourteenth  century, 
though  the  learned  work  of  the  gifted  Professor  Kalousek  has 
proved  *  that  it  had  probably  died  out  before  the  time  of  Hus. 
The  Bohemian  exile,  Paul  Stransky,  writing  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  states  that  the  Eastern  Church  continued  to  have  ad- 
herents among  humbler  men  in  Bohemia  even  after  Romanism 
had  been  generally  accepted.  If  we  consider  the  great  tenacity 
of  the  Bohemian  people,  which  has  so  often  been  blamed  by 
its  enemies  and  praised  by  its  friends,  it  does  not  appear  im- 
probable that  this  may  have  been  the  case,  at  least  for  a 
considerable  period.  Thus  when  the  terrible  persecution  of 
all  opponents  of  Rome  that  began  in  Bohemia  in  1620  was 
ended  by  the  "  Toleranz  Patent  "  of  the  Emperor  Joseph  II. 
in  1781,  it  was  ascertained  that  in  outlying  parts  of  the 
country  many  peasants  had,  during  this  long  period,  continued 
to  hold  religious  services  according  to  the  Hussite  rites. 

It  is  at  any  rate  certain  that,  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  many  prominent  Russian  scholars  such  as 
Novikov,  Helferding,  Vasiljew,  and  Palmov  have,  following  the 
example    of    Stransky,    maintained    that    the    connection    of 

1  O  Historii  Kalicha  v.  dobach  predhusitskych  (The  history  of  the  chalice 
in  the  period  anterior  to  Hus) . 


EUROPE  AND  BOHEMIA  n 

Bohemia  with  the  Eastern  Church  was  of  more  importance  and 
longer  duration  than  had  formerly  been  supposed.1  Some  of 
these  writers  have  even  maintained  that  the  Hussite  move- 
ment itself  was  an  attempt  of  the  Bohemian  people  to  return 
to  the  church  from  which  it  had  first  received  Christianity. 
This  supposition  is  entirely  unfounded.  It  can  be  stated 
positively  that  we  find  in  Hus  no  trace  of  the  influence  of 
the  Eastern  Church,  though  we  cannot  affirm  this  with  the 
same  certainty  with  regard  to  Jerome  of  Prague.  It  is  a  proof 
of  the  close  connection  between  political  and  ecclesiastical 
matters  that  exists  up  to  the  present  day  in  Austria,  Bohemia, 
and  Eastern  Europe,  that  the  question  of  the  connection  of 
Bohemia  with  the  Eastern  Church  acquired  a  certain  political 
importance  during  the  period  (1866 -1872)  when  Russian 
opinion,  and  to  a  far  lesser  extent  Russian  diplomacy,  supported 
the  Bohemians  in  their  struggle  against  the  centralist  policy 
of  Vienna. 

At  the  time  when  Bohemia  first  became  part  of  the  domain 
of  the  Western  Church,  it  appears  to  have  preserved  a  far 
greater  degree  of  independence  than  did  countries  lying 
farther  west.  Immediately  after  the  acceptation  of  the  Roman 
rites  the  country  was  under  the  rule  of  the  German  Bishop 
of  Regensburg;  but  when  in  973  the  bishopric  of  Prague  was 
founded,  it  was  but  loosely  connected  with  Rome.  Its 
administrators  were,  on  the  other  hand,  greatly  dependent  on 
the  rulers  of  Bohemia  who  considered  them  as  their  chaplains.2 
For  several  centuries  after  the  foundation  of  the  bishopric  of 

1  Paul  Stransky  writes:  "  Nobilitas  praecipue  et  plerique  omnes  qui  cum 
Germanis  vicinis  frequentiores  esse,  commerciaque  habere  consuerant  a 
ritibus  Graecis  recesserunt.  Tenuiores  duntaxat  et  plebs  rebus  domi  prae- 
sentibus  contenta  Graeci  ritus  sacra  tenaciter  servabat."  (Respublica  Bo j etna, 
p.  271.) 

2  As  late  as  1182,  when  the  Bishop  of  Prague  attempted  to  appeal  to  the 
German  Emperor  against  a  decree  of  Duke  Frederick  of  Bohemia,  the  latter 
"  fertur  respondisse  per  procuratorem  suum:  Cum  sit  omnibus  notum 
Pragensem  episcopum  meum  fore  capellanum,  sicut  omnes  praedecessores 
sui  patrum  et  avorum  meorum  fuerunt  capellani,  discernite  quaeso  si  liceat  ei 
agere  contra  dominum  suum,  vel  si  tenear  ex  aequo  respondere  capellano  meo." 
{Chronicle  of  Jarloch  Fontes  Rerum  Bohemicarum,  ii.  p.  480.) 


i*  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Prague,  the  influence  of  the  papal  see  on  the  lands  of  the" 
Bohemian  crown  1  was  very  insignificant.  The  supremacy  of 
Rome,  indeed,  only  finds  expression  in  the  fact  that  the  popes 
confirmed  the  most  important  decrees  of  the  Bohemian 
sovereigns  which  referred  to  ecclesiastical  matters.2  This 
state  of  semi-independence  in  the  course  of  time  became  dis- 
pleasing to  the  rulers  of  the  Western  church.  On  several 
occasions  papal  legates  appeared  in  Bohemia,  who  endeavoured 
to  bring  the  Bohemian  Church  into  closer  subjection  to  Rome. 
They,  however,  encountered  the  hostility  both  of  the  sovereigns 
and  of  the  people  of  Bohemia,  and  when,  during  the  long  con- 
test about  investitures,  the  rulers  of  Bohemia  sided  with  the 
German  emperors,  all  relations  between  Rome  and  Bohemia 
ceased  for  a  considerable  time. 

The  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  is  noteworthy  as 
being  the  moment  when  a  great  change  took  place.  Henceforth 
the  power  of  the  Roman  Church  incessantly  increases.  In 
A  Bohemia,  as  elsewhere,  that  church  endeavoured  to  introduce 
obligatory  celibacy  among  the  clergy,  and  this  demand  appeared 
particularly  arbitrary  to  the  Bohemians  who  had  first  received 
Christianity  from  the  Eastern  Church.  Their  priests  had 
hitherto  almost  all  been  married  men,  who  were  attached  by 
family  ties  to  the  other  members  of  the  community.  Thus 
Cosmas  the  chronicler,3  the  earliest  of  Bohemian  historians, 
though  a  canon  of  Prague,  dedicated  his  great  historical  work 
to  the  memory  of  his  wife,  Bozetecha.  In  Bohemia,  as  else- 
where, it  became  part  of  the  papal  policy  to  establish  —  by 
enforcing  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy — a  caste  apart  from  the 

1  The  lands  of  the  Bohemian  crown  are  Bohemia,  Moravia,  and  Silesia, 
though  Lusatia  was  for  a  time  also  considered  a  land  of  the  Bohemian  crown. 

*  The  interesting  question  of  the  relations  of  the  Bohemian  Church  to  Rome 
in  the  pre-Hussite  period  was  formerly  very  obscure.  Recently  (1904  and 
1906)  Dr.  Krofta  has  in  the  Cesky  Casopis  Historicky  {Bohemian  Historical 
Review)  published  a  valuable  series  of  articles  on  this  subject.  I  have  here 
largely  used  these  studies. 

s  For  Cosmas,  see  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  pp.  42-46,  and  particu- 
larly Lectures  on  the  Historians  of  Bohemia,  pp.  6-14. 


EUROPE  AND  BOHEMIA  13 

laity,  and  subject  only  to  the  will  of  Rome.  These  attempts 
met  with  strong  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Bohemian  priests. 
Thus  we  read  *  that  in  1197  the  papal  legate,  Peter  of  Capua, 
who  demanded  that  those  who  were  to  be  ordained  should 
take  the  vow  of  chastity,  was  nearly  killed  by  the  indignant 
priests.  In  the  course  of  the  thirteenth  century,  however, 
celibacy  gradually  became  general  among  the  Bohemian  clergy. 
Henceforth  it  may  be  also  stated  that  the  Roman  pontiffs 
interfered  more  frequently  in  the  internal  organisation  of  the 
Bohemian  Church.  "  Letters  of  immunity,"  which  released 
monasteries  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops,  are  very  often 
met  with,  and  they  greatly  strengthened  the  Roman  influence 
in  the  country.  Gradually  and  cautiously  the  popes  also  intro- 
duced into  Bohemia  the  practice  of  granting  "  provisions  " 
on  bishoprics  and  abbeys,  thus  rendering  illusory  the  right  of 
the  chapters  to  elect  the  bishops  and  abbots.  These  "  pro- 
visions "  became  very  frequent  during  the  rule  of  the  avaricious 
Pope  John  XXII.,  and  still  more  so  during  that  of  Clement 
VI.,  who  appointed  two  of  his  nephews,  William  and  Nicholas 
Roget,  to  canonries  at  the  Cathedral  of  Prague.  As  Dr.  Krofta 
writes  in  his  study,  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  the 
Cathedral  of  Prague  was  so  charged  with  papal  "  provisions  " 
that  it  had  become  almost  impossible  to  obtain  a  benefice 
there  except  by  virtue  of  such  a  provision.  The  discontent 
which  such  an  abuse  naturally  caused  was  aggravated  by  the 
fact  that  its  profits  fell  almost  exclusively  into  the  hands  of 
foreigners — friends  either  of  the  papal  see  or  of  the  Bohemian 
court.  That  court  at  a  period  when  the  Bohemian  kings  were 
often  German  or  Roman  emperors  frequently  had  an  anti- 
national  character.     Of  the  native  priests,  also,  generally  those 

1 "  Anno  Dominicae  Incarnationis  mcxcvii  dominus  Petrus  diaconus 
cardinalis  ad  Sanctam  Mariam  a  Via  Lata  venit  in  Bohemiam  .  .  .  et  ordines 
clericorum  per  manum  domini  Engelberti  Olomucensis  episcopi  fieri  precepit. 
In  quibus  ipse  cardinalis  a  sacerdotibus  plebanis  ob  votum  castitatis  quod 
ab  ordinandis  exigebatur  versis  in  seditionem  fere  fuerat  occisus."  (Chronicle 
of  Jarloch  Fontes  Rerum  Bohemicarum,  ii.  p.  512.) 


+ 


i4  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

who  were  supported  by  Rome  or  the  Bohemian  court  succeeded 
in  obtaining  benefices. 

Of  the  Bohemian  clergy  as  constituted  in  accordance  with 
this  new  system  it  is  impossible  to  speak  otherwise  than  in 
terms  of  the  severest  reprobation.  It  was  a  general  complaint 
that  the  priests  neglected  the  duties  of  their  office ;  many,  indeed, 
entirely  absented  themselves,  though  they  continued  to  draw 
the  revenues  of  their  benefices.  Almost  all  the  priests  were 
accused  of  avarice  and  simony — an  offence  that  had  become 
so  general  that  Hus  devoted  to  it  one  of  his  best-known  treatises. 
The  pious  Ernest  of  Pardubice,  first  Archbishop  of  Prague,  was 
obliged  to  complain  in  one  of  his  provincial  statutes  that  many 
priests  refused  to  celebrate  burial  and  marriage  services,  to 
hear  confessions,  to  administer  the  sacraments  of  communion 
and  extreme  unction,  and  indeed  to  perform  any  ecclesiastical 
functions  except  on  payment  of  money.  The  regulations 
certainly  forbade  such  payments,  and  declared  that  the  penalty 
was  to  be  deprivation  of  the  benefice  should  the  priest  himself 
commit  the  offence,  or  imprisonment  if  the  culprit  was  the 
vicar,  or  any  other  person  acting  for  the  priest.  The  enact- 
ments of  the  pious  archbishop  unfortunately  proved  ineffectual, 
and  the  abuses  mentioned  above  continued  and  even  increased 
up  to  the  time  of  Hus.  Ineffectual  also  were  the  repeated 
enactments  which  forbade  priests  to  frequent  taverns,  to  hunt, 
to  wear  laymen's  clothes,  and  to  carry  arms.  The  gravest  and 
most  serious  grievance,  however,  and  the  one  to  which  Hus  and 
his  forerunners  constantly  refer,  was  the  appalling  immorality 
of  the  clergy.  The  Latin  reports  on  the  archdeaconal  inspec- 
tion held  in  Prague,  in  1379  and  1380,  present  a  most  repulsive 
picture.  It  is  stated  that  of  the  thirty-two  parish  priests 
of  Prague  sixteen  were  notorious  because  of  their,  evil  life, 
and  much  evidence  of  a  most  shocking  character  was  produced 
by  other  priests  and  by  inhabitants  of  the  streets  adjoining 
the  parsonages.1    This  inspection  did  not  include  the  higher 

1  Though  it  is  by  no  means  pleasant  to  deal  with  these  accusations,  founded 


EUROPE  AND  BOHEMIA  15 

dignitaries  of  the  church,  but  we  find  numerous  and  unfavour- 
able reports  on  their  conduct  in  contemporary  records.1  A 
,large  number  of  these  dignitaries  lived  in  open  concubinage. 
Thus  we  read  that  Stephen,  canon  of  Prague,  chief  writer  of 
Bohemia,  had  several  sons  whom  he  openly  recognised.  One 
of  these,  "  John,  son  of  master  Stephen,  chief  writer  of  the 
kingdom  of  Bohemia,"  was,  under  this  designation,  entered 
in  the  register  of  the  University  of  Prague.  The  canon  of 
Vysehrad,  John  Pecnik,  a  teacher  (scholasticus) ,  had  several 
daughters  whom  he  recognised,  and  one  of  whom  he  married 
to  a  tailor.  These  cases  seem  to  differ  somewhat  from  those 
mentioned  previously,  and  it  is  difficult  not  to  believe  that  the 
celibacy  of  the  clergy  was  in  the  pre-Hussite  period  less  firmly 
established  in  Bohemia  than  most  writers  have  stated.  It  is 
certain  that  after  the  death  of  Hus  the  marriages  of  priests 
immediately  became  general  and  met  with  little  or  no  opposi- 
tion. Unfortunately,  cases  of  gross  and  coarse  immorality 
were  also  frequent  among  the  dignitaries  of  the  Bohemian 
Church.  Thus  the  rector  of  the  Church  of  St.  John  the  Evan- 
gelist at  Prague  complained  that  in  the  house  of  John  of 
Landstein,  provost  of  Melnik,  "  the  porter  and  portress  gave 
shelter  to  disorderly  women,  for  the  provost  and  his  brothers, 

though  they  are  on  official  statements  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  it  is 
necessary  to  allude  to  them,  as  the  intense  hatred  and  contempt  of  the  Roman 
priests,  which  was  general  among  the  Bohemians  of  the  time  of  Hus,  would 
otherwise  appear  inexplicable.  Professor  Tomek  (in  vol.  iii.  of  his  Dejepis 
mesta  Prahy — History  of  the  Town  of  Prague)  has  quoted  largely  from  the 
report  mentioned  above.  It  should  be  stated  that  the  late  Professor  Tomek 
was  a  strong  conservative  and  a  firm  adherent  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  No 
one  deserves  less  to  be  suspected  of  exaggeration.  The  report  states  (Tomek, 
iii.  p.  242) :  "  Item  (Bartholomew,  vicar  of  the  Tyn  church)  dicit  quod  ipse 
interdum  sed  raro  habet  unam  publicam  meretricem  per  noctem,  sed  occulte 
et  ipsam  in  crastino  repellit."  (Ibid.  p.  243),  "  Item  dicit  (Prokop,  vicar 
of  St.  Leonard's  church)  quod  plebanus  S.  Johannis  in  Vado  est  meretricator 
et  fornicator  publicus."  (Ibid.  p.  247),  "  Andreas  presbyter  vicarius  Ecclesiae 
St.  Stephen  dicit  quod  monachi  monasterii  S.  Mariae  Carmelitae  transeunt  per 
scolas  publice  in  civitate  Pragensi  volentes  scire  experimenta,  et  quod  dicunt 
se  esse  medicos,  et  sic  decipiunt  muliercs,  conjugatas  et  honestas  ipsas  im- 
praegnando."  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  Prof.  Tomek's  book  for  further 
details  on  the  report  of  the  archdeaconal  inspection. 
1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  pp.  245-246. 


16  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Vitek  and  Litold,  and  that  monks,  married  men,  and  people 
of  all  sorts  were  admitted  there." 

The  impression  produced  on  pious  men  by  such  conduct, 
which  appeared  to  them  not  only  as  a  sin  and  scandal  but  also 
as  a  sacrilege,  cannot  be  exaggerated.  Though  the  reading 
of  Scripture  was  discouraged,  the  Bible  was  in  the  hands  of 
many  pious  men.  They  felt  certain  that  so  sinful  a  world 
would  perish  shortly.  Thence  sprang  the  constant  reference 
to  the  appearance  of  Antichrist,  with  which  we  meet  not  only 
in  the  writings  of  Hus,  but  also  in  those  of  his  forerunners 
and  successors. 

There  were  thus  many  reasons  why  the  general  opposition 
to  papacy  caused  by  the  schism  and  the  coarse  and  even 
blasphemous  polemics  which  accompanied  it  was  stronger  in 
Bohemia  than  elsewhere,  and  had  in  that  country  more  per- 
manent and  more  weighty  results. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   FORERUNNERS   OF   HUS 

Before  referring  to  the  writers  and  preachers  whom  almost 
all  historians,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant,  have  described  as 
the  forerunners  of  Hus,  it  is  necessary  to  notice  a  theory  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  Hussitism  that  has  recently  found  great 
favour,  particularly  in  Germany.  The  great  rancour  and  dis- 
paragement with  which  recent  German  authors,  both  Protestant 
and  Catholic,  have  written  of  Hus,  is  founded  on  the  fact  that 
a  part,  and  a  very  important  part,  of  his  career  has  only  recently 
become  widely  known.  I  allude  to  the  fact  that  Hus  was, 
during  his  whole  life,  a  firm  defender  and  leader  of  the 
Bohemians  in  their  struggle  for  national  independence,  and 
therefore  a  consistent  opponent  of  the  Germans  who,  at  the 
time  of  Hus,  had  obtained  almost  exclusive  possession  of  all, 
and  particularly  of  the  ecclesiastical,  offices  in  Bohemia.  As 
the  racial  struggle  rages  in  Bohemia  at  the  present  day  with 
the  same  fury  as  it  did  five  centuries  ago,  and  as  the  evil 
habit  of  using  the  events  of  the  past  as  examples  and  argu- 
ments applicable  to  the  political  events  of  the  present  is 
very  prevalent  there,  Hus  has  been  hated  by  many  recent 
writers,  not  because  he  was  a  church-reformer,  but  because 
he  was  an  ardent  Bohemian  patriot. 

It  has  constantly  been  affirmed  by  the  writers  of  this  school 
that  Hus  was  an  uneducated  peasant-priest,  a  national  fanatic, 
a  mere  copier  of  the  writings  of  Wycliffe.  These  views  are 
maintained  by  many  writers  whose  ephemeral  works,  intended 
for  the  purpose  of  flattering  the  vanity  of  the  Germans,  require 
no  notice.  But  one  of  the  most  eminent  German  scholars  of 
the  present  day,  Professor  Loserth,  has  also  expressed  similar 

17  B 


18  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

opinions,  and  they  have  not  remained  without  echo  in  recent 
English  works.  In  his  important  work,  Hus  und  Wiclif, 
Professor  Loserth  has  strongly  insisted  on  the  indebtedness  of 
Hus  to  Wycliffe.  He  has  undoubtedly  proved  this  indebted- 
ness, which  has  indeed  at  all  times  been  known  to  those  who 
have  studied  the  writings  both  of  Wycliffe  and  of  Hus.  Thus 
the  treatise  of  Hus,  De  Ecclesia,  is  to  a  large  extent  founded  on 
Wycliffe's  work  of  the  same  name,  and  Professor  Loserth  has, 
in  his  work  mentioned  above,  printed  in  parallel  columns  con- 
siderable passages  from  the  two  works  that  are  almost  identical. 
With  all  deference  to  so  eminent  a  scholar  as  is  Professor 
Loserth,  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  has  everywhere  attempted 
to  minimise  the  importance  and  independence  of  Hus  and  the 
Hussite  movement.  Thus  Loserth— as  did  Hofler  before  him 
— lays  great  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  Hussites  were  frequently 
called  Wyclimtes  by  their  enemies.  He  does  not,  however, 
mention  that  as  the  strength  of  the  Bohemian  movement  in 
favour  of  church-reform  was  largely  based  on  its  connection 
with  the  national  movement,  it  was  an  obvious  stratagem 
of  the  Romanist  party  to  exaggerate  the  dependence  of  the 
reform  movement  on  foreign  influences.  We  frequently  meet 
with  this  tendency.  Thus  one  of  the  manuscripts  of  a  work 
of  Matthew  of  Janov,  one  of  the  forerunners  of  Hus,  formerly 
bore  the  inscription :  Tractatus  Johannis  Wikleff  heretici.  This 
inscription  was  afterwards  erased  and  the  name  of  the  true 
author,  Matthew  of  Janov,  substituted.1  Professor  Loserth  has 
also  placed  Wycliffe  on  a  higher  pedestal  than  most  of  the 
English  reformers'  countrymen  have  done,2  and  he  has  certainly 

1  Dr.  Kybal's  edition  of  Janov's  Regulae  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti,  vol.  i. 
p.  I. 

1  It  is  interesting  to  compare  with  Loserth's  appreciation  the  words  of  the 
late  Canon  Bigg,  who  writes:  "  Wycliffe  was  a  college  don,  the  most  famous 
teacher  of  his  time  at  Oxford,  though  not  of  the  first  rank.  His  philosophy 
is  not  original  and  he  appeals  invariably  to  the  head;  there  is  no  sentiment 
or  pathos  or  unction  about  him,  not  a  grain  of  amusement  is  to  be  extracted 
from  his  books,  and  we  may  reckon  this  a  serious  defect — not  a  grain  of  poetry, 
and  this  is  more  serious  still.  He  had  none  of  the  qualities  of  a  great  preacher, 
or  a  great  leader  of  the  people,  and  as  far  as  we  can  see,  he  never  attempted 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  19 

greatly  underrated  the  learning  of  Hus.  The  comparison 
between  an  enthusiast  such  as  was  Hus,  impelled  by  fiery  in- 
dignation to  denounce  the  iniquities  of  the  clergy  of  Bohemia 
and  the  oppression  of  his  countrymen,  and  a  learned,  though 
somewhat  arid  scholar  such  as  was  Wycliffe,  is  indeed  altogether 
meaningless.  Hus  believed  that  a  thorough  reform  of  the  alien,  I 
immoral,  and  simoniac  clergy  of  Bohemia  was  necessary;  and' 
there  being  no  hope  of  obtaining  the  assent  to  such  a  reform 
from  the  corrupt  popes  of  his  time,  he  inevitably  and,  it  may 
be  added,  reluctantly  became  an  opponent  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  In  the  controversy  which  followed,  Hus  used  as  weapons 
many  of  the  writings  of  divines  anterior  to  his  time.  Among 
these  writings  the  works  of  Wycliffe,  often  themselves  founded 
on  earlier  theologians,  occur  very  frequently.  Often  also  Hus 
and  Wycliffe  have  drawn  from  the  same  source.  It  is  a  great 
merit  of  Mr.  Workman  that  he  pointed  out,  in  the  introduction 
to  his  edition  of  the  Letters  of  Hus,  that  the  Bohemian  reformer 
is  indebted  to  Gratian's  Decretum  almost  as  greatly  as  to  the 
writings  of  Wycliffe.  Both  Hus  and  Wycliffe  also  depend 
largely  on  the  teaching  of  St.  Augustine,  and  one  of  the 
principal  theories  of  both  church-reformers,  which  describes 
the  church  as  the  community  of  all  who  believe  in  Christ, 
laymen  as  well  as  priests,  is  derived  from  the  Defensor  Pacis 
of  Marsiglio  of  Padua. 

It  may  be  stated  generally  that  the  extreme  importance  of 
verbal  exactitude  in  scholastic  definitions — where  even  the 
slightest  deviation  from  the  accepted  wording  might  have 
exposed  the  writer  to  the  suspicion  of  heresy — rendered  it 
customary  among  the  theologians  of  the  Middle  Ages  to  copy 
word  by  word  the  statements  of  previous  writers.  It  was 
equally  customary  with  the  theologians  of  that  time  to  incor- 

to  be  either  one  or  the  other.  (Canon  Bigg,  Wayside  Sketches  in  Ecclesiastical 
History,  p.  1 18).  I  may  here  mention  that  though  I  have  given  a  short  notice 
of  the  early  French  and  German  opposition  to  Rome,  I  have  done  nothing 
similar  as  regards  England.  The  reason  is  very  simple.  Many  English 
writers  far  more  competent  than  I  am  have  dealt  with  this  subject. 


20  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

porate  in  their  works  without  acknowledgment  long  passages 
and  even  entire  treatises  contained  in  the  books  of  previous 
writers.  Thus  Gerson  without  acknowledgment  included  in 
his  works  a  considerable  part  of  the  Declaratio  compendiosa 
defectuum  virorum  ecclesiasticorum  of  Henry  of  Langenstein.1 
Thus  also  Peter  of  Ailly  incorporated  a  considerable  portion 
of  Occam's  Dialogus  in  one  of  his  early  works  without  mention- 
ing his  source.2     Many  other  similar  cases  could  be  mentioned. 

The  great  authority  of  so  eminent  a  scholar  as  Professor 
Loserth  has  induced  other  recent  German  writers,  who  possessed 
less  learning  though  more  racial  hatred  than  he  does,  to  vilify 
Hus  and  to  exaggerate  the  importance  attached  to  Wycliffe 
in  Bohemia.3  These  writers  have  particularly  laid  great  stress 
on  the  supposed  ignorance  of  Hus.  This  supposition  can 
already  be  considered  as  obsolete  in  consequence  of  the  recent 
studies  of  Bohemian  writers,  particularly  of  that  talented  and 
enthusiastic  scholar,  Professor  Flajshaus.  The  learned  pro- 
fessor published  recently  an  almost  unknown  work  of  Hus 
entitled  Super  IV.  Sententiarum,  a  commentary  on  the  sentences 
of  Peter  Lombard.  The  work,  larger  than  any  other  book  of 
Hus  that  is  known,  has  great  value  and  bears  witness  to  the 
deep  and  extensive  learning  of  the  writer.  In  referring  to  this 
recent  and  important  publication,  Professor  Loserth  writes  :  4 
"  It  can  now  be  considered  as  certain  that  the  former  opinion 
of  the  literary  work  of  Hus  will  be  changed  in  many  respects, 
and  that  it  will  be  esteemed  more  highly  than  before." 

It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  the  exaggeration  of  the 
undeniable  influence  of  Wycliffe's  writings  on  those  of  Hus 

1  Schwab.,  Johannes  Gerson,  p.  121. 

*  Tschackert,  Peter  von  Ailly,  p.  43. 

3  Professor  Loserth  is  not  himself  free  from  this  tendency.  Thus,  when 
referring  to  a  passage  of  Hus's  De  Ecclesia  in  which  the  Bohemian  reformer 
refers  to  Bishop  Grosseteste,  Loserth  mentions  that  the  Prague  libraries 
possessed  many  MSS.  of  the  writings  of  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  adding  "  that 
they  were  probably  obtained  because  Wycliffe  frequently  mentioned  him," 
a  conjecture  for  which  Loserth  does  not  give  a  tittle  of  evidence.  Grosseteste's 
writings  were  much  read  and  studied  quite  independently  of  Wycliffe. 

*  Mittheilungen  des  Institats  fur  oesterreichische  Geschiischreibung,  No.  26. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  21 

is  no  new  matter.  Hus  himself  frequently  protested  against 
the  suggestion  that  he  was  responsible  for  all  the  statements 
made  by  Wycliffe,  and  shortly  after  the  death  of  the  Bohemian 
church-reformer  a  controversy  on  this  subject  arose.  In  a 
work  attacking  the  extreme  church-reformers  or  Taborites, 
John  of  Pribram,  a  Hussite  divine  who  was  probably  a  pupil 
of  Janov,  and  who  was  an  intimate  friend  of  Hus  wrote:1 
It  is  well  known  to  many  that,  when  preaching,  Master  John 
Hus  said  that  he  would  not  defend  any  error  of  Wycliffe  or  of 
anyone  else!  He  also  preached:  '  If  Wycliffe  is  in  heaven, 
may  he  pray  to  God  for  us;  if  he  is  in  purgatory,  may  God 
help  him;  if  he  is  in  hell,  the  Lord  be  blessed.'  Also  in  Con- 
stance before  his  death,  he  (Hus)  said  openly  before  all:  '  Why 
do  you  blame  me  because  of  Wycliffe?  What  concern  is  it 
of  mine?  For  neither  was  Wycliffe  a  Bohemian,  nor  was  he 
my  father;  he  was  an  Englishman ;  therefore,  if  he  wrote  errors, 
let  the  English  answer  for  them.'  And  you  can  see  by  this 
speech  that  Master  John  Hus,  as  it  were,  rejected  Wycliffe." 
In  this  passage,  too  long  to  quote  in  its  entirety,  Master  Pribram 
energetically  protests  against  the  description  of  the  Hussites 
as  Wycliffites.  It  is  obvious  from  the  statement  of  Master 
John  of  Pribram  that  the  attitude  of  Hus  and  the  Hussites 
with  respect  to  the  teaching  of  Wycliffe  was  by  no  means  one 
of  inept  and  unreasoning  assent  as  has  been  stated  by  some 
recent  German  writers.  As  recent  Bohemian  scholars  have 
truly  maintained,  the  question  of  the  correlation  of  the  teaching 
of  Wycliffe  and  that  of  Hus  cannot  be  decided  at  present. 
Besides  examining  what  part  of  the  writings  of  Hus  is  derived 
from  the  writings  of  Wycliffe,  it  would  be  necessary  to  examine 
also  thoroughly  what  other  sources  Hus  used,  and  also  what 
were  the  principal  sources  of  the  teaching  of  Wycliffe,  which 
was  by  no  means  original.     It  is  however  questionable  whether 

1  In  his  Zivot  Knezi  Toborskych  (Life  of  the  priests  of  Tabor).  The  work 
is  still  unprinted.  I  quote  from  the  extract  published  in4  the  Vybor  z. 
Lileraiury  ceske  (Selections  from  Bohemian  Literature),  part  ii. 


22  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

such  a  pedantic  enterprise  would  be  worth  the  great  amount 
of  research  which  it  would  require.  No  two  men  were  more 
entirely  different  in  all  respects  than  were  Wycliffe  and  Hus. 
Here,  if  ever,  the  time-worn  saying  that  comparisons  are  odious 
may  be  considered  as  true. 

It  has  been  necessary  to  refer  here  to  the  influence  of  Wycliffe 
on  Hus,  as  some  writers  have  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the 
Bohemian  movement  in  favour  of  church-reform  was  an  arti- 
ficial one  imported  from  foreign  countries,  and  that  there  was 
in  Bohemia,  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century,  no  genuine 
national  feeling  opposed  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 

The  reign  of  Charles  I.  of  Bohemia — better  known  as  the 
Emperor  Charles  IV. — raised  Bohemia  to  a  previously  unknown 
degree  of  prosperity.  The  necessary  consequence  had  been  that 
the  inhabitants  of  Bohemia,  and  particularly  the  citizens  of 
Prague,  had  adopted  a  luxurious  manner  of  life  that  had  been 
quite  unknown  to  their  ancestors.  The  clergy  greatly  favoured 
by  the  king  had  acquired  great  riches,  and,  as  mentioned  pre- 
viously, immorality,  simony,  and  avarice  prevailed  among  its 
members.  Charles,  a  truly  pious  and  enlightened  Christian, 
by  no  means  the  bigot  described  by  some  historians,  was  deeply 
distressed  by  the  state  of  the  Bohemian  clergy;  and  with  the 
aid  of  his  trusted  councillor,  Ernest  of  Pardubice,  Archbishop  of 
Prague,  he  endeavoured  to  stem  the  current  of  immorality  and 
to  bring  about  the  much-needed  reformation  of  the  Bohemian 
clergy.  But  the  deaths  of  the  archbishop,  in  1364,  and  of 
Charles  himself,  in  1378,  put  a  stop  to  their  good  work.  Though 
the  king  had  reached  the  age  of  sixty-two,  there  is  little  doubt 
that  his  life  was  shortened  by  the  apprehension  that  the  evil 
life  of  the  priesthood  would  finally  cause  a  revolution,  and  by 
the  beginning  of  the  schism  which  took  place  shortly  before 
his  death,  and  with  which  he  rightly  thought  that  his  son, 
Venceslas,  would  be  unable  to  cope. 

The  Bohemian  movement  in  favour  of  church-reform  became 
in  its  later  and  better  known  period  so  entirely  a  national  one 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  23 

that  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  first  prominent  church- 
reformer  in  Bohemia  was  a  German.  It  did  not  escape  the 
vigilance  of  Charles,  ever  mindful  of  the  welfare  of  his  Bohemian 
subjects,  that  Prague  was  very  deficient  in  able  preachers.  The 
fame  of  Conrad  Waldhauser,  an  Augustine  monk  who  was 
preacher  at  the  court  of  the  Austrian  dukes  at  Vienna,  reached 
Charles,  and  he  determined  to  secure  his  services  for  the  city 
of  Prague.  After  having  previously  obtained  the  permission 
of  the  Archbishop  of  Prague,  Conrad  proceeded  to  that  city 
in  the  year  1358;  he  had  received  holy  orders  fourteen  years 
previously,  and  was  then  in  the  prime  of  life.  He  was  appointed 
preacher  at  the  Church  of  St.  Giles,  and  to  ensure  his  livelihood 
a  parson's  living  at  Litomerice  (Leitmeritz)  was  also  given  to 
him.  At  that  time — as  at  the  present  day — many  of  the  more 
educated  citizens  of  Prague  were  acquainted  with  the  German 
language,  and  the  eloquent  sermons  of  Conrad  produced  a  deep 
impression  on  the  people.  We  read  x  that,  during  the  first 
year  of  his  activity,  wondrous  and  sudden  conversions  took 
place.  Thus  Hanek,  son  of  the  rich  merchant  Jacob  Bavorov, 
an  alderman  of  the  "  old  town,"  2  one  of  the  most  notorious 
gallants  who,  even  in  church,  pursued  women,  disturbing  their 
devotions,  was  suddenly  converted.  He  now  devoutly  attended 
Conrad's  sermons,  and  even  obtained  the  friendship  of  the 
pious  preacher.  One  of  the  most  notorious  usurers  of  Prague, 
after  hearing  the  sermons  of  Conrad,  returned  to  his  victims 
all  his  ill-earned  gains;  and  the  women  of  Prague,  struck  by 
the  Austrian  monk's  denunciations  of  luxury,  discarded  their 
fine  clothing  and  jewellery,  and  adopted  a  plainer  and  more 
modest  dress.  Many  Jews  flocked  to  Conrad's  sermons  and 
were,  by  his  orders,  allowed  to  be  present,  though  some  of  the 
citizens  endeavoured  to  exclude  them.  The  Church  of  St. 
Giles,  where  Conrad  preached,  though  one  of  the  largest  in 

1  Tomek,  Dejepis  mesta  Prahy  (History  of  the  Town  of  Prague),  vol.  iii. 

*  The  community  of  Prague  at  this  period  consisted  of  three  cities :  the 
old  town,  the  new  town,  and  the  "  small  quarter  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Vltava 
(Moldar^.     See  my  Prague,  Mediaeval  Town  Series. 


>^ 


24  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Prague,  soon  became  too  small  for  the  audience,  and  he  was 
often  obliged  to  preach  in  the  open  air  outside  the  church. 
The  state  of  Prague  became  as  that  of  a  modern  town  during 
a  revival  meeting,  and  we  here  meet  for  the  first  time  with  one 
of  those  outbreaks  of  religious  enthusiasm  that  are  henceforth 
so  frequent  in  the  annals  of  Prague.  Like  so  many  other 
church  reformers,  Conrad  soon  came  into  conflict  with  the 
mendicant  friars.1  He  had  in  his  sermons  vigorously  attacked 
these  friars,  whose  dishonesty,  avarice,  and  immorality  caused 
great  scandal  in  Bohemia.  They  were,  no  doubt,  particularly 
incensed  against  Conrad  because  he  had — as  they  complained 
— admonished  his  congregation  to  give  alms  rather  to  the  poor 
than  to  strong  and  well-fed  monks.2  The  monks  and  nuns 
of  the  mendicant  orders  had  been  in  the  habit  of  demanding 
a  sum  of  money  from  young  boys  and  girls  who  wished  to  enter 
their  orders.  Informed  of  this  practice,  which  he  considered 
simonical  according  to  canon  law,  Conrad  complained  to  the 
Archbishop  Ernest  of  Padrubice,  who,  however,  declined  to 
interfere,  declaring  that  these  orders,  both  male  and  female, 
were  subject  only  to  their  own  regulations.  This  fact  witnesses 
to  the  difficulty  that  confronted  even  the  best  of  bishops,  if 
he  attempted  to  remedy  the  evil  customs  of  the  church  of  that 
time.  The  mendicant  friars  were  not  long  in  seeking  for 
vengeance.     When,  at  the  end  of  the  year  1358,  a  French 

1  The  animosity  of  the  mendicant  friars  against  all  church  reformers  was 
great  at  this  period.  In  a  letter  addressed  to  Conrad  by  Adalbert  Ranco, 
one  of  the  most  learned  Bohemians  of  the  time  and  sometime  rector  of  the 
University  of  Paris,  known  as  a  friend  of  Conrad,  Milic,  and  Janov,  he  writes 
from  Avignon:  "  Dicatis  Milicio  quod  Parisiis  publice  dicitur  et  quasi  super 
certa  per  mendicantes  praedicatur  quod  ego  sum  simplex  Armachanus  (a 
reference  to  Richard  Fitz  Ralph,  Archbishop  of  Armagh).  Casopis  Musea 
Krdlovstri  Ceskeho  (Journal  of  the  Bohemian  Musem),  1880,  p.  561. 

3  The  mendicant  friars  declared:  "  Item  dixit  (Conrad):  Vos  non  vultis 
dare  pauperibus  et  datis  monachis  qui  sunt  fortes  et  qui  plus  habent  quam 
habere  debent.  Nolite  talibus  fortibus  dare  quia  modicum  meritum  ex  hoc 
habebitis  quia  videlicet  in  quolibet  collegio  esset  nee  unus  qui  mereretur 
illud  stipendium  quod  omnes  devorant  in  guttura  sua.  (Hofler,  Geschichte 
der  hussitischen  Bewegung  JUdhmen,  vol.  ii.  pp.  17-50,  contains  previously  un- 
published documents  concerning  the  conflicts  of  Conrad,  Milic,  Janov,  and 
Ranco  with  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  and  with  the  mendicant  friars.) 


2 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  25 


ominican  arrived  as  papal  legate  in  Prague,  they  immediately 
brought  their  complaints  against  Conrad  before  him.  The 
preacher  was  summoned  to  appear  before  the  legate,  and  he 
proceeded  to  the  archiepiscopal  court  accompanied  by  several 
aldermen  of  the  old  town  and  the  town-writer,  Master  Werner, 
who  is  described  as  a  learned  and  worthy  man.  Archbishop 
Ernest  was  then  at  Vratislav  (Breslau)  at  the  court  of  King 
Charles,  and  the  legate  did  not  give  audience  to  Conrad,  but 
appointed  several  dominican  monks  who  were  to  receive  him. 
One  of  these  monks  engaged  in  a  dispute  with  Werner,  who 
told  him  that  his  master,  the  legate,  had  more  wisdom  in  one 
foot  than  Master  Werner  in  his  whole  body.  Thus  provoked, 
Werner  answered,  "  You  are  all  simonists,  and  your  master 
also."  In  the  absence  of  the  legate  no  decision  was  taken, 
and  the  matter  appears  to  have  remained  in  abeyance.  Ten 
days  later,  on  December  28th,  Conrad  Waldhauser  was  again 
summoned  to  appear  at  the  archiepiscopal  court.  Preaching 
early  on  that  morning  he,  from  the  pulpit,  begged  the  aldermen 
to  appoint  two  of  their  number  who  were  to  accompany  him. 
They  readily  consented,  and  Werner,  the  writer,  also  again 
joined  them.  Meanwhile,  the  rumour  was  circulated  in  the 
city  that  the  monks  were  menacing  Conrad,  and  a  large  crowd 
of  men  and  women  followed  the  venerated  preacher,  determined 
to  protect  him  if  necessary.  When  the  crowd  passed  the 
dominican  monastery  of  St.  Clement,  some  of  the  monks  ap- 
peared at  the  windows.  They  had  to  hear  evil  words,  were 
told  that  they  were  heretics  who  deserved  to  be  burnt,  and  the 
people  spat  out  before  them.  Conrad  and  Master  Werner 
endeavoured  as  far  as  possible  to  calm  the  people.1  Of  what 
befell  at  the  archbishop's  palace  we  have  no  certain  information. 
It  appears,  however,  that  all  parties  agreed  to  leave  matters 
in  suspense  till  Archbishop  Ernest  should  have  returned  to 
Prague.  Early  in  1359,  the  papal  legate  summoned  Conrad 
to  a  disputation  probably  at  the  monastery  of  St.  Clements. 

1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii. 


26  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Waldhauser  declined,  stating  that  he  was  certain  that  the  monks 
of  that  community,  who  were  among  the  strongest  opponents 
of  church-reform,  would  stone  him  should  he  appear  there. 
He  added  that  he  would,  however,  justify  himself  before 
the  archbishop.  On  the  return  of  Ernest,  the  mendicant  friars 
presented  to  him  their  complaints  against  Conrad,  formulated 
in  twenty-four  articles.  Their  contents  were  very  futile,  and 
to  those  who  read  the  articles  it  will  appear  that  the  accusations 
of  laziness,  immorality,  avarice,  and  gluttony  levelled  against 
the  friars  were  thoroughly  justified.  Other  accusations,  such 
as  that  Conrad  had  said  that  the  monks  and  nuns  who  received 
children  for  a  pecuniary  remuneration  were  "  Arian  heretics," 
are  too  absurd  to  deserve  belief.  Conrad's  dignified  answer,  in 
which  he  did  not  deny  having  spoken  strongly  against  the  vices 
of  the  friars,  but  complained  that  words  he  had  never  spoken 
had  been  attributed  to  him,  seems  to  have  satisfied  the  arch- 
bishop. He  caused  an  inscription  to  be  placed  on  the  doorways 
of  all  the  monasteries  of  the  mendicant  friars,  summoning  all 
who  might  have  any  accusation  to  bring  against  Conrad,  to 
appear  on  a  certain  day  at  the  archbishop's  court.  No  one 
appeared.  The  friars,  however,  continued  secretly  to  attack 
the  pious  preacher.  Thus  when  Duke  Leopold  of  Austria 
visited  Prague,  the  mendicant  friars  brought  many  mendacious 
accusations  against  Conrad  before  him.1  The  duke  appears  to 
have  disbelieved  these  accusations,  as  he  invited  Conrad  to 
return  with  him  to  Vienna.  The  conscientious  preacher  none 
the  less  considered  it  his  duty  to  draw  up  a  statement  defending 
his  conduct  and  to  send  it  to  Vienna.  Of  the  later  years  of 
Conrad  but  little  is  known.  He,  however,  always  retained  the 
favour  of  King  Charles,  who  conferred  on  him  the  rectorship 
of  the  Tyn  Church — next  to  the  Cathedral-Church  of  St. 
Vitus,  the  most  important  one  in  Prague.  It  is  a  proof  of  the 
great  independence  of  mind  of  King  Charles,  who  has  often 

1  The  friars  accused  Conrad  of  having  said  that:   "  Prius  quam  homo  filiam 
suam  Simoniace  traderet  religioni,  eligibilius  esset  earn  meretricem  fieri." 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  27 

been  judged  very  falsely  by  superficial  writers,  that  he  ventured 
to  do  this  in  face  of  the  continued  opposition  to  Conrad  on  the 
part  of  the  mendicant  friars.  That  opposition,  indeed,  only 
ceased  with  the  death  of  Conrad  in  1369.  He  left  several 
Latin  writings,  among  them  are  the  Apologia  that  has  already 
been  mentioned,  and  an  extensive  Postilla  studentum  sanctae 
universitatis  Prageusis  super  evangelia  dominica,  written  on  the 
request  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  young  students  of  the  univer- 
sity. Conrad  Waldhauser's  writings  have  only  been  preserved 
in  MSS. 

Among  those  who  listened  to  Conrad's  sermons  was  a  young 
priest,  who  was  destined  to  become  his  successor  on  the  arduous 
path  of  church-reform.  I  refer  to  John  Milie'  of  Kromerize 
(in  German,  Kremsier),  whose  truly  Christ-like  nature  caused 
him  to  be  revered  as  a  saint  even  during  his  lifetime.1  Milic 
was  born  at  Kromerize  probably  in  the  early  part  of  the  four- 
teenth century,2  but  all  tales  concerning  his  earliest  years 
must  be  considered  as  legendary.  It  is  certain  that  he  was 
of  humble  origin,  and  was  from  childhood  destined  for  the 
church.  He  appears  even  in  early  youth  to  have  taken  his 
life-work  more  seriously  than  was  then  usual  with  young 
clerics.  He  read  widely  and  showed  early  in  life  that  great 
capacity  for  work  and  study  that  never  left  him  throughout 
life.  It  is  specially  noted  that  he  devoted  much  time  to  the 
study  of  Scripture,  and  the  same  has  been  stated  of  his  successor 
Matthew  of  Janov.  This  devotion  to  the  Bible  may,  indeed, 
be  considered  as  generally  characteristic  of  the  Bohemian 
church-reformers.  Though  symptoms  of  exceptional  earnest- 
ness are  from  the  first  evident  in  the  career  of  Milic,  he  did  not, 
and  perhaps  under  the  circumstances  could  not,  seek  prefer- 
ment otherwise  than  in  the  manner  then  usual  among  young 
priests.     Milic  early  in  life  found  employment  in  the  chancery 

1  Matthew  of  Janov  writes:    "Ipse  vero  Milicius  filius  et  imago  domini 
Jesu  Christi,  apostolorumque  ipsius  similitudo  prope  expressa  et  ostensa." 
1  Dr.  Novotny,  Jan  Milic  z.  Kromerize. 


a 


28  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

of  the  Emperor  Charles.  The  head  of  that  chancery  was  then 
John  of  Streda,  Bishop  of  Litomysl.  Through  the  influence 
of  Streda,  Milic  obtained  in  1361— even  before  he  had  been 
ordained  a  priest — from  Pope  Innocent  VI.  a  papal  provision, 
bestowing  on  him  a  benefice  in  the  archdiocese  of  Prague.  He 
became  a  canon  of  St.  Vitus  in  that  city,  and  it  appears  that 
somewhat  later  the  rank  of  archdeacon  was  also  conferred  on 
him.  But  his  enthusiastic,  pious,  and  conscientious  nature 
induced  him  in  1363  already  to  abandon  all  his  honours. 

It  has  often  been  stated  that  the  impression  produced  on 
Milic  by  the  preaching  of  Conrad  Waldhauser  was  the  cause 
of  this  determination.  It  was  at  any  rate  not  the  only  cause.1 
The  work  of  Milic  as  archdeacon  had  given  him  a  terrible 
insight  into  the  depravation  of  the  clergy,  and  he  could  not 
fail  to  perceive  that  the  system  of  papal  provisions  by  which 
he  had  himself  benefited,  contributed  largely  to  the  general 
demoralisation.  Milic  therefore  considered  it  his  duty  to 
renounce  all  worldly  goods,  and  to  devote  himself  entirely 
to  preaching.  Being  of  the  Bohemian  nationality,  he  was  able 
to  preach  to  the  people  in  their  own  language,  a  thing  that  had 
been  impossible  to  Waldhauser.  In  the  autumn  of  the  year 
1363  he  began  preaching  at  Prague,  first  at  the  Church  of  St. 
Nicholas  in  the  "  small  quarter  "  and  then  at  that  of  St.  Giles 
in  the  old  town.  As  had  been  the  case  with  Waldhauser 
previously,  Milic  also  was  almost  immediately  confronted  by 
the  enmity  of  the  mendicant  friars.  A  man  of  an  enthusiastic 
and  even  visionary  nature,  he  carried  out  to  the  full  the  prin- 
ciple of  apostolic  poverty  which  he  had  imposed  upon  himself. 
He  had  given  everything  to  the  poor,  and  depended  for  his 
nourishment  entirely  on  the  gifts  of  pious  women,  and  would 
accept  only  what  was  absolutely  necessary  to  sustain  life.  His 
clothing  was  of  the  meanest  description,  and  when  he  walked 
from  one  church  to  another — he  often  preached  in  different 
churches  on  one  day  in  Latin,  Bohemian,  and  German — the 

1  Novotny,  Jan  Milic, 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  29 

poverty  of  his  appearance  attracted  attention.  But  when  a 
new  garment  was  offered  to  him,  he  answered  in  the  words  of 
Christ:  "  If  one  has  two  cloaks,  let  him  give  one  to  him  who 
has  none."  Similarly,  "  When  Thomas  the  nobleman  " — the 
person  referred  to  is  probably  Thomas  of  Stitny — "  said  to  one 
of  the  disciples  of  Milic:  '  I  see  that  master  Milic  keepeth 
nothing  for  himself ;  if  he  would  but  keep  it  for  himself  I  would 
gladly  give  to  him  a  good  fur  coat  of  fox  skin.'  "  Milic  refused 
to  accept  the  gift  under  this  condition,  and  continued  to  walk 
through  the  streets  of  Prague  in  mean  attire,  even  during  the 
terrible  cold  of  the  Bohemian  winters.1  Many  other  tales, 
often  recalling  St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  are  told  of  Milic,  whom  the 
people  soon  began  to  revere  as  a  saint.  He  acquired  great 
influence  over  the  more  pious  among  the  young  priests,  and  it 
was  no  doubt  for  them  that  the  Latin  sermons  mentioned  above 
were  preached. 

The  privations  and  fatigues  which  Milic  underwent,  not 
unnaturally  produced  a  strong  effect  on  an  imaginative  and 
somewhat  visionary  nature,  such  as  was  that  of  Milic.  He 
believed  that  an  inward  spirit  directed  all  his  actions,  and  on  the 
advice  of  this  mysterious  spirit,  he  for  a  time  gave  up  preaching 
and  resolved  to  become  himself  a  mendicant  friar,  perhaps 
hoping  thus  to  obtain  greater  influence  over  the  other  friars. 
On  the  advice  of  his  friends  he  soon  abandoned  this  idea.  His 
profound  and  constant  study  of  Scripture  led  Milic,  in  his  state 
of  exaltation,  on  strange  paths.  He  was  impressed  by  the  evils 
of  his  time,  the  corruption  of  the  clergy,  the  dissolution  of  all 
social  order  in  Germany  and  Italy.  Anarchy  caused  by  bands 
of  freebooters,  who  pillaged  Italy  and  afterwards  Germany, 
produced  so  great  and  terrifying  an  impression  on  the  public 
mind,  that  even  the  insane  idea  that  the  Emperor  Charles 
encouraged  these  bands  to  continue  their  depredations  found 
adherents.  So  hopelessly  evil  a  state  appeared  to  Milic  to 
portend  the  approaching  end  of  the  world — an  idea  with  which 

1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  ill. 


3o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

we  meet  frequently  in  the  writings  of  all  Bohemian  reformers— 
Hus  himself  not  excepted.  The  inward  spirit  which  guided 
Milic  drew  his  attention  to  the  passage  in  St.  Matthew's 
evangel  which  refers  to  Daniel's  prophecy.1  Milic  now  began 
to  study  these  prophecies  with  great  attention,  and  obtained 
from  them  the  conviction  that  the  time  when  Antichrist  would 
appear  had  already  arrived.2  While  under  the  influence  of 
these  studies,  Milic,  when  preaching  in  the  presence  of  the 
Emperor,  pointed  at  him  denouncing  him  as  Antichrist. 
Though  here  also  Charles  showed  that  special  forbearance  to 
the  Bohemian  church-reformers  which  has  been  overlooked  by 
those  who  have  described  him  as  a  bigot;  it  was  impossible 
that  so  public  an  affront  should  pass  unnoticed.  Archbishop 
Vlasim  who  had,  in  1364,  succeeded  to  Ernest  of  Pardubice, 
caused  Milic  to  be  imprisoned,  and  he  ordered  Dean  William 
of  Lestkov,  and  "  the  learned  Master  Adalbert  (the  person 
referred  to  is  in  all  probability  Ranco)  to  examine  the  ortho- 
j/  doxy  of  the  teaching  of  Milic.  They  declared  that  they  found 
nothing  heretical  in  it,  and  Master  Adalbert  in  particular 
stated  that  he  could  not  examine  the  truth  of  that  which  had 
evidently  been  said  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Probably  in  consequence  of  this  favourable  decision,  Milic 
was  soon  released  from  prison.  He  resolved  now  to  carry 
out  a  plan  he  had  previously  formed  to  visit  Rome.  Pope 
Urban  V.  was  then  expected  there  from  Avignon.  On  Milic's 
arrival  in  Rome  in  the  spring  of  the  year  1367,  the  pope  had  not 
yet  come  there,  and  Milic,  after  waiting  a  month,  decided  to 
proceed  to  Avignon,  hoping  to  meet  him  there.  But  before  he 
started  on  his  new  journey,  the  inward  spirit  willed  him  to 
announce  in  a  sermon  the  approaching  appearance  of  Anti- 
christ. Of  this  sermon,  he  affixed  a  copy  on  the  gates  of  St. 
Peter's  Church.     He  was  arrested  by  order  of  the  inquisition 

1  Chap.  xxiv.  1 5 . 

'Novotny,  Jan  Milic.  Dr.  Novotny  gives  a  curious  account  of  the 
calculations — based  on  Daniel,  chap.  xii.  v.  10-12 — which  led  Milic  to  this 
conclusion. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  31 

while  praying  within  that  church,  and  imprisoned  in  the 
monastery  of  Ara  Coeli  in  the  capital.  It  is  probable  that  the 
mendicant  friars  in  Bohemia  had  already  denounced  him  in 
Rome,  and  when  the  news  of  his  imprisonment  reached  Prague, 
they  joyfully  declared  in  their  sermons  that  Milic  would  soon 
be  burnt.1  While  in  prison,  Milic  employed  his  time  in  formu- 
lating his  views  on  the  appearance  of  Antichrist — a  subject  in 
which  he  was  then  entirely  absorbed.  It  was  at  this  time  that 
he  wrote  his  Profthecia  et  Revelatio  de  Antichristo .2  It  was  also 
while  he  was  in  prison  that  he  wrote  a  long  letter  to  Pope 
Urban  V.  The  order  of  ideas  in  both  writings  is  very  similar; 
in  both  he  denounces  in  burning  and  apocalyptic  language  the 
terrible  depravity  of  the  prelates,  the  monks,  the  nuns  of  his 
time.  In  both  he  also  enlarges  on  the,  to  him,  ever-present 
subject  of  the  advent  of  Antichrist.  Incidentally  he  also,  in 
the  Prophecia,  explains  the  reasons  that  induced  him  to  visit 
Rome.  He  writes  that  the  inward  spirit  that  guided  him 
said,  "  Go  and  tell  the  supreme  pontiff  to  bring  back  the 
church  to  the  state  of  salvation."  3     In  his  letter  to  the  pope 

1  The  author  of  the  Life  of  Milic,  published  in  the  works  of  Balbinus,  writes 
of  the  return  of  Milic  and  his  companion  to  Prague:  "  Cum  vero  Pragam 
pervenissent  quasi  nova  lux  omnibus  Christi  fidelibus  orta  fuisset,  ita  gaude- 
bant  quia  per  Viros  Religiosos  mendicantes  saepe  in  eorum  praedicationibus 
undubant  ubi  dicebatur :  Charissimi  ecce  jam  Militius  cremabitur.  {Miscellanea 
Historica  Regni  Bohemiae,  liber,  iv.) 

J  This  book  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  treatise,  De  Anatomia  Anti- 
christi — printed  in  the  Nuremberg  edition  of  the  works  of  Hus — which  is  not 
by  Milic.  The  book  has  also  been  ascribed  to  Matthew  of  Janov.  Recent 
research  proves  that  it  was  written  after  the  siege  of  Prague  in  1420  by  a 
Hussite  who  used  the  writings  of  Janov.  (See  Dr.  Kybal,  Matey  z.  Janova, 
and  the  same  writer's  study  in  the  Cesky  Casopis  Historicity  (Bohemian 
Historical  Yearbook),  vol.  xi.) 

3  "  Postremo  incepi  attendere,  quomodo  esset  de  statu  et  salute  Christian- 
orum.  Et  stans  in  hoc  stupefactus  audivi  spiritum  in  me  sic  loquentem  in 
corde.  Vade  et  die  summo  pontifici,  qui  ab  hoc  Spiritu  sancto  electus  est,'  ut 
reducat  ecclesiam  in  statum  salutis,  ut  mittat  angelos  sive  praedicatores 
cum  tuba  praedicationis  et  voce  magna,  ut  tollant  praedicta  scandala  de 
regno  Dei  sive  de  ecclesia,  ut  quia  messis,  id  est  consummatio  saeculi  venit 
jam  eradicent  zizania,  id  est  haereticos  et  pseudoprophetas,  ypocritas,  beg- 
hardos  et  beginas  et  scismaticos,  qui  omnes  per  Gog  et  Magog  significantur 
detegant.  .  .  ."  (Vestnik  Kr.  c.  Spolecnosti  Nauk  (Journal  of  the  Bohemian 
Learned  Society),  1890.  Mr.  Mencik  has  here  published  for  the  first  time 
Milic's  prophecy  and  his  letter  to  Pope  Urban  V.) 


32  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

he  also  strongly  insists  on  the  necessity  of  assembling  a  general 
council  of  the  church  in  Rome. 

On  the  arrival  of  Pope  Urban  in  Rome,  Milic  was  released 
from  prison  after  he  had  had  an  interview  with  the  Cardinal 
of  Albano,  and  discussed  his  views  with  him.     The  cardinal 
appears  to  have  acquired  considerable  influence  over  Milic. 
Thenceforth  we  find  that  the  Bohemian  preacher  laid  less 
stress  on  his  views  concerning  the  impending  advent  of  Anti- 
christ.    The  Cardinal  of  Albano  treated  him  with  great  honour, 
received  him  in  his  house,  and  ordered  those  who  had  maligned 
him  to  beg  his  pardon.     Milic  then  returned  to  Prague  "  with- 
out hindrance,  comforted,  and  appeased."     On  his  return  to 
his  country,  he  was  as  zealous  for  the  welfare  of  his  fellow- 
men  as  before,  but  in  his  sermons  as  far  as  possible  avoided 
to  touch  on  matters  of  dogma.     Like  all  Bohemian  church- 
reformers,  he  strove  rather  to  denounce  the  immorality,  avarice, 
luxury,  haughtiness  of  the  Bohemian  people,  and  ecclesiastics 
in  particular,  to  inculcate  the  study  of  Scripture,  to  help  the 
poor,  humble,  and  oppressed,  than  to  excel  in  scholastic  defini- 
tions and  theological  sophistry.     Milic,  indeed,  after  his  return 
from  Rome  became  even  more  stringent  in  his  ascetism  and 
more  enthusiastic  in  his  attempts  to  aid  the  poor  and  suffering. 
He  now  abstained  entirely  from  the  use  of  meat  and  wine, 
allowed  himself  but  a  limited  time  for  sleep,  slept  on  a  hard 
couch,  and  frequently  used  the  rod  for  the  chastisement  of  his 
body.     The  fame  of  the  sanctity  of  Milic  soon  spread  through 
Prague,  though  the  mendicant  friars  and  most  of  the  parish- 
priests,  who  considered  his  saintly  bearing  a  tacit  condemnation 
of  their  evil  lives,  continued  his  bitter  enemies.     A  certain 
number  of  friends  now  gathered  round  him,  who  sympathised 
with  his  labours  and  admired  the  sanctity  of  his  life.     Such 
men  were  Conrad  Waldhauser,  Adalbert  Ranco,  Thomas  of 
Stitny,  Matthew  of  Janov.     Of  these  men  formerly  little  was 
known  but  their  names,  and  our  present  knowledge  is  almost 
entirely  founded  on  researches  made  within  the  last  twenty 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  33 

or  thirty  years.  It  is  indeed  probable  that,  even  now,  much 
information  concerning  the  forerunners  of  Hus  exists  in 
unpublished  MSS. 

During  the  later  years  of  his  life,  Milic  lived  almost  entirely 
in  Prague,  though  he  again  proceeded  to  Rome  in  1369.  Of 
the  cause  of  this  journey  little  is  known,  but  we  read  that  it 
was  of  short  duration.  His  return  was  hastened  by  the  news 
of  the  death  of  his  old  friend,  Conrad  Waldhauser.  Kindly 
as  ever,  Milic  considered  it  his  duty  to  take  on  himself  the 
liabilities  of  his  friend  that  his  creditors  might  not  surfer. 
After  this  short  absence,  Milic  began  again  to  devote  himself 
to  works  of  charity  and  piety.  He  was  indeed  able  to  do  this 
on  a  larger  scale  than  before,  as  he  became  Conrad  Waldhauser's 
successor  as  rector  of  the  Tyn  Church.  He  still  refused  to 
possess  money  or  any  but  the  most  necessary  worldly  goods, 
and  devoted  all  his  revenues  to  pious  works.  Like  many 
saintly  men,  he  was  deeply  impressed  by  the  pity  of  the  fate 
of  fallen  women.  His  eloquent  sermons  had  caused  some  of 
these  women  to  repent,  and  Milic  endeavoured  to  rescue  them 
permanently.  Enthusiast  though  he  was,  he  was  not  devoid 
of  capacity  for  business  when  it  was  the  welfare  of  others,  not 
his  own,  that  was  at  stake.  Aided  by  a  few  friends,  he  bought 
a  house  near  the  Church  of  St.  Giles,  and  placed  there  the  women 
whom  he  had  rescued  from  the  worst  of  slaveries.  They  were 
under  the  supervision  of  "  Margaret  of  Moravia,"  a  worthy  and 
intelligent  woman,  who  instructed  them  in  needlework  and 
household  duties.  Some  then,  under  Milic's  auspices,  went 
into  domestic  service,  others  were  sent  home  to  their  families, 
and  a  few  married.1  By  permission  of  the  archbishop,  a  small 
chapel  was  erected  where  mass  was  said  and  where  Milic 
preached  twice  daily,  once  in  Bohemian  and  once  in  German ; 
for  though  he  had  originally  spoken  his  own  language  only, 
he  later  acquired  a  thorough  knowledge  of  German.     The 

1  Xovotny,  Jan  Milic. 


34  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

accounts  of  Milic's  "  mission,"  as  we  may  call  it,  have  a  very 
modern  character,  and  are  so  interesting  that  I  regret  being 
unable  to  quote  from  them  more  extensively. 

Milic's  foundation  soon  became  too  small  for  the  many  who 
begged  to  be  admitted  to  it.  The  Emperor  Charles,  however, 
whose  favour  Milic  had  never  lost,  came  to  his  aid.  It  is 
impossible  not  to  express  here  admiration  for  a  sovereign  who 
continued  to  protect  a  preacher  who  had  offered  him  what,  to 
the  pious  mind  of  Charles,  must  have  appeared  the  most  deadly 
of  insults— one  that  many  a  ruler  of  the  fourteenth  century 
would  have  requited  by  the  most  terrible  tortures.  Charles 
ordered  the  buildings  on  an  ill-famed  spot  at  Prague,  known 
as  Benatky  (Venice),  to  be  destroyed,  and  presented  the  ground 
to  Milic.  On  September  19,  1372,  the  foundation-stone  of  the 
new  buildings  was  laid.  They  consisted  of  a  church  consecrated 
to  the  "  sinning  saints  Mary  Magdalene,  Afra,  and  the  Egyptain 
Mary,"  a  large  building  occupied  by  the  female  penitents,  and 
a  smaller  one  in  which  Milic  and  his  disciples  dwelt.  Alluding 
to  a  passage  in  the  Revelation,1  a  book  that  was  always  in 
his  mind,  Milic  gave  the  name  of  Jerusalem  to  this  new 
foundation.  The  new  buildings  in  time,  however,  again  became 
too  small,  but  aided  by  pious  benefactors  Milic  was  soon  able 
to  enlarge  them  by  buying  several  neighbouring  houses.  The 
community  soon  acquired  a  somewhat  monastic  character. 
Milic  enjoined  all  its  members  to  attend  mass  daily,  to  receive 
communion  frequently,  and  to  devote  all  their  time  to  deeds  of 
penitence.  It  was  frequently  stated  that  the  members  of  the 
community  were  distinguished  by  a  peculiar  dress,  but  this  is 
expressly  denied  by  the  author  of  the  biography  of  Milic, 
which  is  included  in  the  works  of  Balbinus. 

At  this  period  Milic  also  suffered  greatly  from  the  hostility 
of  the  parish  priests  of  Prague,  who  now  allied  themselves  with 
the  mendicant  friars,  his  old  enemies.  The  details  of  the 
dispute  are  not  very  clear.     Here  also  it  may  be  hoped  that 

1  Revelation,  chap.  xxi.  10-27. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  35 

further  archival  research  will  add  to  our  information.1  As 
already  mentioned,  many  priests  in  Prague  were  irritated  by  the 
example  set  them  by  the  saintly  life  of  Milic.  As  a  pretext  for 
an  attack  on  him,  they  used  the  foundation  of  "  Jerusalem," 
which,  they  said,  interfered  with  their  jurisdiction.  At  a 
general  meeting  of  the  parochial  clergy  of  Prague,  it  was  decided 
to  bring  their  complaints  against  Milic  before  the  archiepiscopal 
vicar;  only  a  few  of  the  poorer  priests  expressed  dissent,  but 
the  other  said,  "  You  favourers  of  Milic,  go  hence."  Both 
Milic  and  his  opponents  appeared  at  the  archiepiscopal  court 
and  the  priests  violently  attacked  him  saying,  "  Since  thou  hast 
begun  to  preach  we  have  no  peace,  but  rather  constantly  much 
vexation."  Milic  answered,  "  As  it  was  in  the  beginning  and 
now  and  for  ever.  Amen."  They  then,  enraged  at  his  being 
so  different  from  them,  called  him  a  hypocrite  and  a  beghard, 
and  said  other  vile  words. 

Formal  proceedings  against  Milic  were  subsequently  taken 
at  the  archiepiscopal  court,  John  Pecnik,  canon  of  the  Vysehrad, 
who  has  already  been  mentioned  2  acting  as  spokesman  for  the 
priests.  The  proceedings  were  very  protracted,  but  it  is  evident 
that  Archbishop  Ocko,  though  he  acted  with  great  caution, 
was  in  favour  of  Milic.  The  priests,  therefore,  decided  to  appeal 
to  the  pope,  and  drew  up  a  lengthy  document  formulating  their 
complaints.  They  insisted  principally  on  Milic's  views  con- 
cerning Antichrist,  though  he  had  long  abandoned  these  views. 
They  also  stated  that  he  had  encouraged  the  inmates  of  "  Jeru- 
salem "  to  receive  communion  very  frequently.  This  was 
undoubtedly  true,  and  we  meet  with  this  complaint  very  often 
in  the  records  of  the  Hussite  movement.  The  document  also 
gave  a  distorted  account  of  the  preaching  of  Milic,  and  en- 

1  The  account  of  Milic  by  Matthew  of  Janov,  printed  by  Hofier,  Geschichte 
der  Hussitischen  Bewegung,  ii.  p.  40,  from  the  library  of  the  Bohemian  Museum, 
is  very  short.  I  have  already  quoted  Janov's  description  of  the  nature  of 
Milic.  Of  the  persecutions  he  endured  Janov  only  writes:  "  Cum  Mylicius 
carissimus  .  .  .  bona  opera  ...  in  Praga  perfecit,  nihil  aliud  nisi  obprobria 
vituperia  et  persecutiones  continuas  ab  antichristianis  in  Praga  eadem 
reportavit."  •  See  p.  15. 


36  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

deavoured,  probably  on  the  trumped-up  evidence  of  some 
women  who  had  run  away  from  "  Jerusalem,"  to  attack  his 
moral  character.  This  document  was  entrusted  to  one  Master 
Klenkot,  who  was  to  carry  it  to  Avignon.  Early  in  the  year 
1374,  Archbishop  Ocko  received  a  bull  from  Pope  Gregory  XI. 
declaring  that  he  had  been  informed  that  Milic  had  spread 
certain  heretical  and  schismatic  doctrines  in  Bohemia,  and  that 
he  was  surprised  at  the  negligence  of  the  archbishop  and  the 
other  bishops;  the  pope  ordered  that  the  matter  should  be 
investigated  and  proceedings  taken  against  Milic  according  to 
the  ecclesiastical  regulations,  and,  if  necessary,  with  the  aid 
of  the  secular  arm.  This  message  deeply  afflicted  the  arch- 
bishop, and  it  was  Milic  himself  who  comforted  him,  saying  that 
by  the  help  of  God  he  would  prove  that  he  had  only  spoken 
the  truth.  Though  Ocko  still  believed  in  the  innocence  of 
Milic,  the  papal  bull  forced  him  to  order  a  new  investigation 
of  the  accusations.  Milic,  however,  preferred  to  appeal  to  the 
pope,  and  having  obtained  financial  aid  from  some  of  his  friends, 
he  started  for  Avignon  in  March  1374.  The  papal  see  was  very 
suspicious  of  heresies  at  that  moment  when  the  whole  Catholic 
world  was  in  a  disturbed  state,  and  the  dignitaries  of  Avignon 
appear  to  have  to  a  certain  extent  believed  the  accusations  of 
Klenkot.  Matters  changed  with  the  arrival  of  Milic,  and  the 
more  worthy  among  the  churchmen  did  not  fail  to  perceive 
the  saintliness  of  the  man.  Milic  again  found  a  friend  in  his 
former  protector  the  Cardinal  of  Albano.  The  accuser  Klenkot 
was  called  on  to  substantiate  his  accusations  against  Milic,  but 
entirely  failed  to  do  so.  When  he  fell  ill,  shortly  afterwards, 
Milic  offered  prayers  for  his  recovery,  and  this  truly  Christ-like 
act  contributed  to  convincing  the  prelates  of  the  saintliness 
of  the  Bohemian  preacher.  Milic  was  declared  to  be  entirely 
innocent,  was  authorised  to  preach  before  the  assembled 
cardinals,  and  was  invited  to  dine  with  the  Cardinal  of  Albano 
after  the  sermon.  The  triumph  of  his  good  cause,  not  the 
honours  bestowed  on  him,  we  are  told,  gave  him  great  joy. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  37 

But  Milic's  earthly  career  was  now  drawing  to  an  end,  and 
he  was  soon  to  enjoy  that  peace  which  he  had  so  nobly  earned. 
The  privations  and  persecutions  which  he  had  endured  had 
entirely  exhausted  him.  He  fell  dangerously  ill,  and  died  at 
j&  Avignon,  probably  at  the  end  of  the  year  1374.  The  author 
of  the  biography  of  Milic,1  gives  a  touching  account  of  his 
last  hours.  He  left  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Cardinal  of  Albano, 
who  burst  into  tears  when  he  received  it,  saying  that  Milic 
deserved  to  be  canonised.  In  Prague  a  reactionary  movement 
had  meanwhile  broken  out,  and  several  of  Milic's  disciples 
were  imprisoned.  The  "  Jerusalem  "  foundation  also  was  sup- 
pressed in  the  year  of  the  death  of  its  founder;  but  that  the 
results  of  the  labours  of  the  saintly  man  should  not  entirely 
perish,  the  emperor  decreed  that  the  foundation  of  "  the  worthy 
Milic  of  good  memory,  our  pious  and  beloved  one  " — to  quote 
the  words  of  Charles — should  be  given  over  to  Cistercian 
monks.  To  satisfy  the  rancour  of  the  enemies  of  Milic,  it  was, 
however,  decreed  that  the  foundation  should  in  future  bear 
the  name  of  St.  Bernard.  These  measures  did  not  alienate 
from  Milic  the  affection  of  the  people  of  Prague,  who  continued 
to  venerate  him  as  a  saint. 

Before  ending  this  brief  account  of  the  career  of  Milic,  it 
is  necessary  to  point  out  that  he  never  incurred  the  reproach 
of  expressing  heretical  views.  His  statement  that  Antichrist 
would  shortly  appear  was  an  attack,  not  against  the  popes 
whom  indeed  Milic  revered,  but  against  the  Emperor  Charles 
who  wisely  overlooked  this  temporary  aberration  in  considera- 
tion of  the  great  merits  of  the  saintly  man.  The  question  of 
frequent  communion  was,  at  the  time  of  Milic,  only  just 
beginning  to  become  a  subject  of  controversy.  The  careers 
of  Waldhauser  and  Milic,  however,  prove  that  at  that  period 
in  Bohemia  every  priest  who  lauded  poverty  and  denounced 

1  This  biography  is  printed  with  the  works  of  Balbinus,  a  learned  Bohemian 
Jesuit  of  the  seventeenth  century,  who,  however,  is  not  the  author  of  the 
biography. 


38  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

simony  and  immorality  incurred  the  almost  diabolical  hatred 
of  the  more  vicious  and  luxurious  among  the  higher  members 
of  the  Bohemian  Church — and  this  quite  independently  of 
dogmatical  controversies.  We  shall  meet  with  this  hatred 
again  when  dealing  with  Hus,  and  it  has  not  been  sufficiently 
noted  by  writers  who,  though  thoroughly  versed  in  theology, 
did  not  devote  much  time  to  the  study  of  Bohemian  history. 
The  literary  work  of  Milic  appears  to  have  been  considerable, 
but  only  a  few  Latin  writings  of  inconsiderable  size — to  which 
I  have  already  alluded — have  been  preserved  and  printed, 
while  none  of  his  Bohemian  works,  which  are  said  to  have  been 
numerous,  have  escaped  destruction. 

The  next  of  the  little  band  of  Bohemian  church-reformers 
whom  I  shall  mention  was  Thomas  of  Stitny x  (b.  1331 ;  d.  1401). 
He  differed  in  many  respects  from  the  others.  He  never 
obtained  or  sought  ecclesiastical  offices,  nor  even  took  holy 
orders.  Though  one  of  the  earliest  students  of  the  University 
of  Prague,  he  afterwards  retired  to  his  ancestral  home,  where 
he  spent  the  greatest  part  of  his  life.  There  is,  however,  no 
doubt  that  he  frequently  returned  to  Prague,  as  his  writings 
contain  many  allusions  to  his  personal  relations  with  Wald- 
hauser,  Milic,  Ranco,  and  Janov.  In  contrast  to  the  other 
reformers — to  whom  only  a  few  writings  in  the  national 
language  are  attributed,  sometimes  on  doubtful  evidence — 
Stitny  wrote  in  Bohemian  only.  He  appears  to  have  generally 
leacl  a  retired  life,  nor  do  his  writings  seem  to  have  attracted 
much  attention  at  the  time.  The  learned  masters  of  the 
university  strongly  disapproved  of  the  use  of  the  national 
language  for  the  purpose  of  philosophical  or  theological  con- 
troversy, and  indeed  thought  it  unseemly  that  laymen,  who  had 
taken  no  degree,  should  express  their  opinion  on  such  matters. 
It  might,  therefore,  appear  that  the  writings  of  Stitny  were 
devoid  of  importance;  yet  nothing  is  less  true.  The  ideas 
and  theories  developed  by  Stitny  penetrated  widely  among 

1  For  Stitny,  see  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  2nd  edition,  pp.  63-79- 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  39 

the  nobility  and  the  smaller  landowners  of  Bohemia,  men  who 
afterwards  took  so  prominent  a  part  in  the  Hussite  wars. 
Stitny's  works  also  bear  witness  to  the  high  degree  of  culture 
which  Bohemia  had  already  reached,  as  well  to  the  great 
interest  in  matters  of  religion  which  at  most  periods  of  history 
we  find  among  the  people  of  Bohemia.  I  have  elsewhere 
written  extensively  on  the  works  of  Stitny.  It  will  here  only 
be  necessary  to  refer  to  his  writings  as  far  as  they  are  connected 
with  the  cause  of  church-reform  in  Bohemia. 

Thomas  of  Stitny,  who  belonged  to  the  smaller  nobility 
of  Bohemia,  was  born  at  the  castle — or  "  tower,"  to  use  the 
Bohemian  designation — of  Stitny,  in  Southern  Bohemia.  As 
already  mentioned,  he  visited  the  University  of  Prague  shortly 
after  its  foundation,  and  being  of  a  studious  nature  soon  fell 
under  the  influence  of  the  preaching  of  Waldhauser  and  Milic.1 
He  viewed  with  great  indignation  the  persecution  on  the  part 
of  the  mendicant  friars  which  these  pious  preachers  then 
suffered.  In  the  chapter  of  his  work,  Of  General  Christian 
Matters,2  which  treats  of  monkery,  Stitny  writes,  obviously 
alluding  to  these  persecutions:  "  They  (the  monks)  quarrel, 
hate  one  another,  revile  one  another  .  .  .  and,  what  is  most 
terrible,  every  worthy  preacher,  every  good  man  displeases 
them,  for  he  sees  their  errors;  gladly  would  they  declare  such 
a  man  a  heretic  that  they  might  more  freely  practise  their 
wiles."  Stitny  writes  yet  more  clearly  in  one  of  his  yet  un- 
published works  3  "  Thus  within  my  memory  the  devil  incited 
them  (the  monks)  against  Conrad,  a  noble  preacher  of  God's 
truth,  and  they  said  that  he  was  an  apostate,  because  he  ex- 
posed the  wiles  of  false  priesthood  and  taught  that  which  is 
truth;  thus  also  were  they  hostile  to  the  good  Milic;  and  the 
evil  spoke  evilly  of  him,  but  it  was  false.     There  are  some  also 

1  See  Erben's  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  Stitny's  O  obecnych  vecech 
krestanskych  (Of  general  Christian  matters). 

2  Book  iv.  p.  1 36  of  Erben's  edition. 

3  Quoted  by  Erben  in  his  Introduction  to  the  book,  Of  General  Christian 
Matters,  p.  viii. 


4o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

who  would  be  glad  if  that  which  I  write  were  drowned,  because 
they  wish  that  they  alone  should  appear  wise."  Somewhat 
later,  in  the  same  manuscript,  Stitny  again  refers  to  "  the 
priest  Conrad  and  the  priest  Milic  who  were  in  Prague,  faithful 
and  brave  preachers  of  God's  word,  one  to  the  Germans,  the 
other  to  the  Bohemians ;  because  they  spoke  against  this,  that 
men  in  holy  orders  live  in  an  unholy  fashion,  many  thundered 
at  them  with  insolent  and  untruthful  speeches,  and  even  now 
these  speak  evilly  of  them  who  say  of  evil  that  it  is  not  evil, 
and  of  these  good  men  that  they  were  not  good." 

It  has  already  been  frequently  pointed  out  that  we  find  much 
in  common  in  the  views  of  the  Bohemian  reformers.  Common 
to  all  is  an  intense  devotion  to  the  Holy  Bible.  I  have  already 
alluded  to  it,  and  shall  have  to  do  so  again  when  writing  of 
Matthew  of  Janov.  In  Stitny,  this  feeling  is  very  strong;  he 
writes: *  "  This  also  mark  carefully,  beloved  brethren,  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  are  truly  like  letters  that  are  sent  to  us  from 
our  home;  for  our  home  is  heaven,  and  our  friends  are  the 
patriarchs  and  prophets,  the  apostles  and  martyrs,  and  our 
fellow-citizens  are  the  angels  with  whom  we  shall  be,  and  our 
king  is  Christ."  Similarly  as  regards  eschatological  matters 
and  the  supposed  advent  of  Antichrist — a  subject  that  then 
was  in  the  minds  of  all,  particularly  in  Bohemia — the  views 
of  Stitny  recall  those  of  Milic.  Thus  referring  to  a  passage  in 
the  Revelation,2  Stitny  writes  :  3  "  The  movement  of  the  earth 
is  the  movement  of  the  people  who  are  withdrawing  from  the 
truth.  The  sun  signifies  the  papal  throne  and  the  moon  the 
imperial  one,  and  the  falling  stars  signify  those  of  both  estates 
who  fall  from  heavenly  desires  to  earthly  ones,  and  from  order 
to  disorder.  Another  matter  in  which  the  Bohemian  reformers 
incurred  the  enmity  of  the  more  numerous  and  less  worthy 

1  Second  preface  to  the  work,  Of  General  Christian  Matters,  p.  5  of  Erben's 
edition. 

2  Chapter  vi.  12-13. 

3  MS.  quoted  in  Erben's  Introduction  to  the  book.  Of  General  Christian 
Matters,  p.  x. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  41 

members  of  the  Bohemian  clergy,  was  their  recommendation 
of  the  frequent  communion  of  laymen.  This  was  very  dis- 
tasteful to  many  priests  whose  pride  induced  them  to  extend 
as  far  as  possible  the  lines  that  divided  them  from  the  laity. 
It  is  also  probable,  as  Professor  Tomak  has  shrewdly  con- 
jectured,1 that  they  thought  that  constant  administration  of 
the  sacrament  of  the  altar  took  up  too  much  of  their  time, 
while  the  remuneration  was  very  scant.  The  question  of 
frequent  communion  together  with  that  of  communion  in  the 
two  kinds,  plays  a  very  large  part  in  the  Hussite  movement. 
The  claim  of  laymen  to  receive  communion  as  frequently  and 
in  the  same  form  as  ecclesiastics,  was  an  outcome  of  the 
Bohemian  view,  that  all  worthy  Christians  are  equally  members 
of  God's  church.  As  has  happened  not  infrequently,  the  less 
worthy  the  clergy  became,  the  greater  became  its  claims  to  a 
superior  and  exclusive  position.  At  this  period  we  often  meet 
in  Bohemia  with  the  theory  that  even  the  worst  priest  is  better 
than  the  best  layman.  On  the  subject  of  frequent  communion 
Stitny  expresses  himself  clearly.  He  writes: 2  "  I  wonder  at 
those  many  wise  people  who  have  strenuously  opposed  the 
wishes  of  those  who  desire  to  receive  frequently  the  body  of 
God.  How  much  better  would  it  be  if  such  men  would  rather 
diligently  "teach  goodness  to  instruct  those  who  wish  frequently 
to  receive  the  body  of  God ;  and  with  what  rage  do  they  blame 
without  reflection  all  who,  not  being  priests,  frequently  receive 
the  body  of  God.  Haply  also  Milic  was  offensive  to  them,  he 
who  taught  the  people  God's  will  in  truth  and  in  the  unity  of 
God's  faith  differing  nowise  from  the  Holy  Scripture." 

Though  we  thus  find  in  Stitny  much  that  is  common  to  all 
Bohemian  reformers,  he  differed  from  them  particularly  in  the 
later  years  of  his  life,  by  displaying  more  caution  and  greater 
subserviency  to  the  Church  of  Rome.     He  frequently  asserts 

1  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii. 

*MS.  printed  by  Erben  in  his  Introduction  to  the  book,  Of  General 
Christian  Matters,  p.  ix. 


42  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

that  he  does  not  intend  to  write  anything  contrary  to  the  teach- 
ing of  that  church,  and  declares,  "  Should  I  have  written  any- 
thing unwisely,  I  wish  to  state  that  I  do  not  intend  to  hold  any 
views  except  those  held  by  the  Christian  community,  and  the 
University  of  Prague."  This  passage  is  interesting  as  fore- 
shadowing the  great  authority  on  theological  matters  which 
the  University  of  Prague  acquired  during  the  Hussite  wars. 
As  regards  the  question  of  the  veneration  of  pictures,  Stitny 
writes  in  a  very  moderate  manner,  declaring,  perhaps  in  not 
unintentional  opposition  to  Matthew  of  Janov,  who  had  very 
strong  views  on  this  subject:  "  I  am  not  one  of  those  who 
think  that  there  should  be  no  images  among  Chrstians.  I 
think  they  exaggerate;  for  we  may  have  pictures  instead  of 
writings  as  a  memorial  of  such  (holy)  things,  but  not  that  such 
a  picture  be  as  a  likeness  of  God."  x  With  great  humility, 
Stitny  deferred  to  those  whom  he  believed  to  possess  pro- 
founder  learning  than  he  himself  could  claim.  In  a  letter 
addressed  to  Adalbert  Ranco,  "  that  master  of  stupenduous 
intellect  and  wondrous  memory,  who  first  of  the  Bohemians 
obtained  the  mastership  of  Holy  Scripture  at  the  University 
of  Paris,"  Stitny,  while  sending  him  his  book  Of  General 
Christian  Matters,  begs  him  to  correct  his  writings  should  they 
contain  anything  contrary  to  Scripture. 

Stitny's  writings  were  very  numerous,  and  he  constantly 
re-wrote  them,  sometimes  altering  their  names.  He  did  not 
begin  writing  early  in  life;  and  of  his  two  greatest  works  the 
first,  the  book  Of  General  Christian  Matters  (0  obecnych  vecech 
Krestanskych)  3  was  only  finished  in  1376.  It  deals  mainly 
with  theological  matters,  but  the  book,  written  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  Stitny's  children,  contains  much  excellent  advice  on 
matters  of  daily  life.  More  pretentious  is  Stitny's  other  great 
work,   entitled  Besedni  Recif  which  may  be   translated  by 

1  Erben,  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  book,  Of  General  Christian 
Matters.  2  Ibid. 

*  Edition  by  Erben,  1852.  «  Edited  by  Professor  Hattala,  1897. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  43 

Learned  Entertainments.     The  book  is  an  attempt  to  define, 
according  to  the  scholastic  system,  the  personality  of  God  and 
His  attributes.     It  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  doctrine 
of   Rome,    as   far  as  that  doctrine  had   been   developed  at 
the  time  of  Stitny.      As  already  noted,  Stitny,  towards  the 
end  of  his  life,  became  much  more  moderate  in  his  denunciations 
of  the  iniquities  of  his  time,  and  the  later  manuscripts  of  his 
works  are  far  more  obsequious  to  the  Roman  Church  than  the 
earlier  ones  had  been.     While  the  reform  movement  continu- 
ously assumed  a  more  advanced  character,  Stitny's  caution 
became  ever  greater,  and  he  was  at  the  end  of  his  life  no  longer 
in  touch  with  the  leaders  of  a  movement  to  the  development 
of  which  he  had  largely  contributed.     Stitny's  merits  as  a 
Bohemian  writer  are  very  great;    he  was  the  first  to  employ 
the  national  language  as  a  medium  for  the  discussion  of  theo- 
logical and  philosophical  questions.     He  was  in  this  also  a 
true  forerunner  of  Hus,  whose  great  merits  for  the  development 
of  the  language  of  his  country  have  only  lately  been  recognised. 
In  the  last  vears  of  his  life,  Stitny  returned  to  Prague,  and  lived 
there  up  to  his  death  in  1401.     At  this  period  his  constant 
companion  was  his  daughter,  Anna,  or  Anezka,  as  he  called 
her.     After  his  death  she  occupied  part  of  a  house  near  the 
Bethlehem  chapel  where  Hus  was  shortly  to  begin  to  preach. 
It  is  known  that  several  pious  ladies  lived  in  community  in  a 
house  near  Hus's  chapel.     If,  as  is  probable,  Anezka  of  Stitny 
was  one  of  these  ladies,  the  fact  forms  an  interesting  link 
between  Stitny  and  his  greater  successor. 

In  connection  with  Stitny  and  the  other  reformers  pre- 
viously mentioned,  the  name  of  Adolbert  Ranco  (known  also 
as  Ranconis,  or  Rankuv)  cannot  be  omitted.  The  details  of 
his  life  are  very  obscure,1  though  we  meet  with  his    name 

1  I  have  mainly  based  this  brief  account  of  the  career  of  Ranco  on  an 
article  by  Dr.  Tadra,  entitled  "Mistr  Vojtech  Rankuv,"  which  appeared  in 
the  Casopis  Musea  Kralovstvi  Ceskeho  (Journal  of  the  Bohemian  Museum) 
for  i87q  Previously  Dr.  Loserth  had  published  an  outline  of  the  career  of 
Ranco  in  his  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  der  Hussitischen  Bewegutig,  n.  Dr. 
Loserth's  study  shows  great  animus  against  Ranco. 


44  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

constantly  in  the  writings  of  the  Bohemian  reformers,  and  he 
was  famed  as  the  most  learned  Bohemian  of  his  time.  It  is 
permissible  to  include  him  among  the  Bohemian  reformers, 
not  only  because  of  his  constant  relations  with  these  men, 
which  I  have  frequently  mentioned,  but  also  because  he,  as 
he  has  stated  in  a  letter  to  which  I  have  already  alluded, 
complained  of  the  hostility  of  the  mendicant  friars  who  accused 
him  of  being  an  "  Armachanus."  The  year  of  the  birth  of 
Ranco  is  uncertain,  but  we  find  him  a  student  at  the  University 
of  Paris  in  1348.  He  there  belonged  to  the  "  English  "  nation, 
which,  besides  English,  included  also  Scotchmen  and  Germans 
as  well  as  the  few  students  from  Slavic  countries.  Ranco 
soon  obtained  the  reputation  of  being  a  very  profound  theo- 
logian, and  the  university  conferred  great  honours  on  him — 
a  fact  to  which  Stitny  alluded  in  a  passage  that  I  have  quoted 
above.  In  1355,  Ranco  became  rector  of  the  University  of 
Paris,  and  he  appears  to  have  remained  in  France  for  a  con- 
siderable time.  He  must,  however,  have  returned  to  his  country 
some  time  before  the  year  1364,  as  we  read  that  he  was  in  that 
year  one  of  the  canons  of  the  cathedral  of  Prague,  who  were 
appointed  to  report  on  the  orthodoxy  of  the  views  of  Milic. 
Ranco,  as  already  stated,  declared  that  Milic  had  spoken  under 
the  direct  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  From  the  somewhat 
scanty  statements  concerning  Ranco  which  have  reached  us, 
it  appears  that  he  was  not  a  man  of  a  conciliatory  nature,  and 
he  was  frequently  involved  in  the  sometimes  turbulent  theo- 
logical controversies  that  then  raged  at  the  university.  The 
fact  that  Ranco,  at  a  time  when  the  university  was  still  largely 
German,  openly  declared  himself  a  Bohemian,  and  defended 
the  interests  of  his  countrymen,  drew  on  him  the  hatred  of 
many  of  the  German  scholars.  Probably,  in  consequence  of  this 
ill-will,  Ranco  again  left  Bohemia  and  proceeded  to  Avignon. 
He  appears  at  this  time  also  to  have  lost  the  favour  of  the 
emperor;  but  Charles,  always  lenient  to  truly  pious  and  zealous 
churchmen,  soon  allowed  him  to  return  to  his  country.     On 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  45 

the  death  of  the  empeior  in  1378,  Ranco  was  awarded  the 
honour  of  pronouncing  a  funereal  oration.1  Ranco  died  in 
1388,  after  having  made  a  will  which  instituted  a  foundation 
for  the  benefit  of  poor  students  of  the  Bohemian  nationality 
who  might  wish  to  study  theology  or  the  free  arts  at  the 
Universities  of  Oxford  or  Paris.  By  this  will,  Ranco  incurred 
the  hostility,  not  only  of  the  German  writers  of  his  time,  but 
also  of  those  of  the  present  day. 

Ranco's  fame  as  a  preacher  was  very  great  in  his  time,  and 
the  scanty  remains  of  his  sermons  that  have  been  preserved 
lead  us  to  believe  that  this  fame  was  justified.  Ranco's  sermon 
on  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Charles  has  already  been  men- 
tioned. The  "  synodal  oration,"  delivered  by  Ranco  in  1385, 
is  also  very  interesting.  He  here  inveighs  against  the  simony, 
avarice,  and  immorality  of  the  clergy  in  a  manner  that  recalls 
Waldhauser  and  Milic.2 

As  regards  Ranco's  theological  controversies,  some  rise  little 
above  the  level  of  scholastic  disputes,  and  require  no  notice 
here.  Two  of  these  controversies  are,  however,  of  interest, 
as  they  concern  views  that  are  characteristic  of  all  Bohemian 
reformers.  It  has  already  been  noted  and  will  have  again  to 
be  stated  later,  that  these  reformers  laid  great  stress  on  the 
merits  of  the  frequent  communion  of  laymen.  On  this  subject 
Ranco  addressed  a  letter  to  the  rector  of  St.  Martin's  Church 
in  the  "old  town"  Albert  Martin.  This  letter,  which  is  dis- 
tinguished by  great  broadness  of  mind  and  moderation, 
attracted  great  attention  at  the  time  it  appeared.     It  has  been 

1  Printed  in  the  Fontes  Rerum  Bohemicarum,  vol.  iii.  pp.  433-441. 

8  Thus  Ranco  writes :  "...  Videamus  et  consideremus  diligenter,  qualibus 
nunc  ecclesia  spousa  Christi  commissa  paranymphis  et  dico  quod  in  primitiva 
ecclesia  sanctos  et  perfectos  suae  puritatis  custodes  .  .  .  nunc  autem  ista 
versa  propter  aliquos  majores  clericos  in  oppositam  qualitatem  dura  videmus 
aliquos  ad  earn  venire  per  pecunian  allatam  vel  post  solutam  et  datam  peius 
quam  Simon  Magus.  .  .  .  Addo  quod  mille  annis  in  clero  non  fuerit  tarn 
scurilis  habitus  ut  nunc  est,  qui  multum  attestatur  super  inordinata  cleri- 
corum  vita,  nam  mihi  non  est  dubium  quod  tales  clerici  inordinatum  habitum 
exterius  ferentes  sint  in  mente  inordinati,  corrupti  et  viciati.  ..."  (MS.  of 
University  Library,  Prague,  quoted  by  Tadra,   Voytech  Ranhuv.) 


46  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

preserved  in  several  MSS.,  and  Matthew  of  Janov  quotes  it  in 
his  Regulae  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti."  Ranco  writes:  "Were 
I  rector  (farar)  of  a  church,  and  laymen  came  to  me,  men  or 
women,  desiring  to  receive  daily  the  sacrament  of  the  altar, 
I  would  not  permit  this,  except  indeed  if  daily  communion  had 
long  been  established  as  a  general  custom ;  for  a  good  prepara- 
tion is  required,  which  those  who  live  among  worldly  people 
cannot  obtain.  If,  however,  someone  is  declared  by  his  con- 
fessor— an  honest  and  sensible  man,  not  a  flatterer — to  be 
sufficiently  perfect,  and  this  man  has  a  true  and  ardent  desire 
to  receive  the  sacrament  frequently,  then  his  rector  or  the 
vicar,  with  the  assent  of  the  recort  or  his  confessor,  may  admit 
him  to  communion  at  intervals  of  eight  days,  unless  the  statutes 
of  the  synods  decree  otherwise." 

Another  controversy  of  some  importance  in  which  Ranco 
took  part  referred  to  the  foundation  of  a  new  festival  in  honour 
of  the  Virgin  Mary.  John  of  Jenzenstein,  who  succeeded  his 
uncle,  Ocko  of  Vlasim,  as  archbishop  of  Prague,  had  a  particular 
devotion  to  the  Madonna,  and  he  founded  in  her  honour  a  new 
festival  to  which  he  gave  the  name  of  the  Visitation  (Festum 
Visitationis  S.  Marice  in  Montanis).  He  informed  the  synod 
of  his  decision,  which  had  been  taken  without  obtaining  the 
consent  of  the  pope,  announcing  at  the  same  time  that  the  new 
festival  would  be  kept  on  July  2.  The  archiepiscopal  vicar 
then  informed  the  assembled  canons  of  the  cathedral  of  Prague 
of  the  archbishop's  resolution,  inviting  them  to  express  their 
views  on  the  subject.  Adalbert  Ranco  then  rose  and  spoke 
strongly,  not,  indeed,  against  the  new  festival,  but  against  the 
action  of  the  archbishop  who  had  founded  it  without  the  per- 
mission of  the  pope  and  the  consent  of  the  canons.  As  far  as 
can  be  judged,  these  arguments  were  but  a  pretext,  as  the 
archbishop  had  not  indeed  consulted  the  pope,  but  had  informed 
him  of  the  decree  at  the  time  he  issued  it.  The  attitude  of 
Adalbert  was  undoubtedly  a  protest  against  what  he  con- 
sidered an  exaggerated  devotion  to  the  Virgin  Mary.     There 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  47 

is  no  doubt  that  Archbishop  Jenzenstein  viewed  it  in  this  light, 
for  he  became  greatly  incensed  against  Ranco.  Even  when  the 
latter,  having  fallen  ill,  endeavoured  to  pacify  Jenzenstein,  the 
archbishop  replied  most  ungraciously,  stating  that  Ranco  no 
doubt  wished  to  amend  himself  because  of  his  fear  of  approach- 
ing death,  and  that  it  was  for  that  reason  also  that  he  had  begun 
to  fast,  pray,  and  do  good  works.  When  Ranco  was  dying, 
the  archbishop  sent  to  him  the  provost  of  Roudnice  to  tell  him 
to  desist  from  calumniating  the  virgin,  otherwise  he  would  have 
to  fear  her  wrath.  When  Ranco  died  on  August  15,  the  day  of 
the  Assumption  of  Mary,  Jenzenstein  regarded  this  as  a  con- 
firmation of  the  truth  of  his  warning.1 

The  last  and  greatest  of  the  forerunners  of  Hus  was  Matthew  /^ 
of  Janov.  His  career  has  up  to  recent  times  been  very  little 
known,  and  only  one  incident  in  his  life — an  incident  that  is 
not  very  creditable — appears  to  have  attracted  the  attention 
of  his  contemporaries.  Of  the  writers  of  the  nineteenth  century 
few  have  devoted  much  time  and  study  to  Janov.  Foremost 
among  these  is  Palacky,  the  Pathfinder,  who  first  penetrated 
into  the  almost  complete  darkness  which  formerly  surrounded 
the  forerunners  of  Hus.  Palacky's  Vorldufer  des  Hussiten- 
thumes  is  a  valuable  work  even  seventy  years  after  its  appear- 
ance. About  the  same  time  the  Protestant  divine,  Neander, 
also  devoted  considerable  attention  to  the  study  of  Janov. 
Neander's  statement  that  Matthew  of  Janov  went  further  in 
his  opposition  to  Rome  than  Hus  has  been  frequently  challenged 
both  by  German  and  by  Bohemian  writers.  It  contains,  how- 
ever, a  great  deal  of  truth.  That  the  importance  of  Matthew 
has  been  underrated  both  by  the  friends  and  foes  of  Rome 
is  undoubtedly  due  to  his  formal  recantation  of  his  opinions, 
which  became  widely  known.  The  Romanists,  to  whose  teach- 
ing he  had  conformed,  had  no  wish  to  perpetuate  the  memory 
of  his  former  errors,  as  they  considered  them.  The  Hussites, 
on  the  other  hand,  always  bore  in  mind  his  submission — caused 

1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii. 


48  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

by  cowardice,  or,  as  it  is  more  charitable  to  suppose,  by  the 
scepticism  that  is  sometimes  the  result  of  profound  study. 
The  Hussites  rarely  referred  to  Matthew  of  Janov,  and  some  of 
his  works  were  even  attributed  to  other  writers.  The  enthu- 
siastic partisans  of  church-reform  could  not  fail  to  contrast  his 
attitude  with  the  indomitable  heroism  and  self-sacrifice  of  Hus. 

It  is  only  recently  that  a  book  has  appeared  dealing  with 
Matthew  of  Janov  which  can  be  considered  as  giving  a  thorough 
account  of  the  life  and  works  of  this  great  Bohemian  reformer. 
I  refer  to  the  work  Matej  z.  Janova  by  Dr.  Kybal,  one  of  the 
most  promising  of  the  younger  historians  of  Bohemia.  The 
book  is  founded  on  sound  archival  research  in  Prague — no 
slight  merit,  as  the  state  of  most  of  the  archives  at  Prague  is 
still  one  of  great  disorder.  Dr.  Kybal  has  also  begun  to  edit 
the  Regulae  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti,1  the  life-work  of  Matthew. 

The  events  of  the  life  of  Matthew  of  Janov  do  not  require  a 
detailed  account.  The  year  of  his  birth  and  his  birthplace  are 
both  uncertain.  We  have,  however,  evidence  to  prove  that 
he  was  born  previously  to  the  year  1355,  and  we  know  that  he 
belonged,  like  Stitny,  to  the  smaller  nobility  of  Bohemia.  He 
probably  went  to  Prague  early  in  life,  and  we  have  his  own 
authority  for  stating  that  he  there  came  under  the  influence  of 
Milic  of  Kromerice,  whose  memory  he  cherished  throughout 
life.  Whether  Janov  also  knew  Waldhauser  at  Prague  is  un- 
certain. The  teaching  of  Milic  naturally  tended  to  confirm  in 
Janov  the  special  devotion  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  is 
characteristic  of  all  Bohemian  church-reformers.  He  tells  us:  2 
"  I  have  loved  the  Bible  since  my  youth  and  called  it  my  friend 
and  bride — verily  the  mother  of  beateous  affection,  and  know- 
ledge, and  fear,  and  holy  hope." 

Though  dates  here  also  continue  uncertain,  we  know  that 
Matthew  pursued  his  studies  at  the  University  of  Paris.     He 

1  Dr.  Kybal's  complete  edition  of  the  Regulae  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti 
will  consist  of  six  volumes;  the  first  appeared  in  1908. 

2  Regulae  Veteris  etNovi  Testamenti,  Proemium  (p.  12  of  Dr.  Kybal's  edition). 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  49 

was  probably  there  from  1373  to  1381.  He  became,  like  all 
Bohemians,  a  member  of  the  English  "  nation,"  and  pursued 
his  studies  with  great  diligence.  He  obtained  many  academic 
honours,  and  soon  became  known  as  the  Magister  Parisiensis, 
the  name  under  which  he  is  generally  mentioned  by  contem- 
porary writers.  Among  other  academic  honours  Matthew 
obtained  that  of  licentiate  of  the  free  arts.  Because  of  his 
great  poverty  he  was  exempted  from  paying  the  fees  customary 
on  such  occasions.1  In  the  same  year — 1376 — he  became 
master  of  the  free  arts,  but  henceforth  devoted  himself  mainly 
to  the  study  of  theology.  After  having  been  ordained  a  priest 
in  1378,  Janov  endeavoured  to  obtain  a  papal  provision — 
almost  the  only  way  in  which,  at  that  corrupt  period  of  the 
church,  a  poor  man  could  obtain  his  livelihood  within  the 
ecclesiastic  state.  For  this  purpose  Matthew  twice  visited 
Rome,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  difficulties,  humiliations,  and 
expenses,  very  large  for  a  poor  man,  which  he  encountered 
while  submitting  his  petitions,  greatly  embittered  his  mind.2 
He  was,  however,  finally  successful  in  his  mission,  and  on  May 
1, 1381,  Pope  Urban  VI.  conferred  on  him  the  expectancy  on  a 
canonry  of  the  cathedral  of  Prague.  After  again  visiting  Paris, 
Janov  returned  to  Bohemia,  and  presented  the  papal  letters 
which  he  had  received.  The  rank  of  canon  was  conferred  on 
him,  but  there  being  then  no  vacant  benefice  he  remained  in 
Prague,  a  pauper  philosophans  as  he  himself  expresses  it.  He 
was,  however,  befriended  by  Adalbert  Ranco,  who  gave  him 
hospitality  in  a  house  belonging  to  the  canons  of  Prague.3  It 
was  probably  also  through  the  influence  of  Ranco  that  Matthew 
obtained  at  the  end  of  the  year  1381,  the  office  of  penitentiary 
to  the  archbishop.     His  duties  consisted  mainly  in  taking  the 

1  Kybal,  Matej  z.  Janova. 

*  He  himself  writes  feelingly  on  this  subject:  "Pro  quibus  (provisions) 
oportel  adire  sedes  praelatorum  et  tremebunde  coram  ipsis  pro  talibus 
supplicare  et  impetrare  difficulter  non  sine  impensis  magnis  et  expensis, 
saltern  scriptoribus  ipsorum  pro  Uteris  super  impetrato  confectis  et  formatis. 
(Regulae  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamanti,  lib.  hi.,  tract  4,  quoted  by  Kybal). 

^*  Tadra,  Mistr  Voftech  Rankuv. 

D 


5o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

place  of  the  archbishop  at  the  confessional.  About  the  same 
time  he  was  also  appointed  preacher  at  the  Cathedral  Church  of 
St.  Vitus.  To  these  new  dignities,  however,  no  remuneration 
appears  to  have  been  attached;  but  finally  Janov  obtained 
the  office  of  parish-priest  at  Velika  Ves  (Michelsdorf).  Though 
deriving  his  income  from  this  office,  he  continued  to  reside  at 
Prague.  An  indefatigable  worker,  he  found  time,  in  spite 
of  his  numerous  occupations,  to  continue  at  the  University 
of  Prague  the  studies  which  he  had  begun  in  Paris,  and  in  addi- 
tion to  his  Latin  sermons  at  St.  Vitus,  he  also  preached  in  Latin 
in  the  Church  of  St.  Nicholas  in  the  old  town.  In  these 
Bohemian  sermons,  -Ranco  expressed  views  similar  to  those 
with  which  we  meet  in  his  writings.  He  spoke  very  strongly 
against  the  then  prevalent  practice  of  venerating  the  pictures 
and  statues  of  saints.  He  declared  that  the  pictures  of  Christ 
and  the  saints  give  opportunities  for  idolatry;  therefore  should 
they  be  burnt  or  destroyed,  not  invoked  and  honoured  by  the 
bending  of  knees  and  the  lighting  of  tapers  before  them.  He 
further  stated  that  it  should  not  be  believed  that  God,  through 
these  images,  works  miracles  for  the  benefit  of  those  who 
venerate  them.  Janov  farther  stated  that  it  was  not  true 
that  the  saints  in  heaven  and  their  remains  (such  as  their 
bodies,  bones,  clothing,  jewels,  etc.)  should  be  honoured  here 
on  earth,  nor  that  these  saints  could  by  their  merits  and  in- 
tercession be  more  helpful  to  men  than  those  saints  who  still 
live  upon  earth.  Another  tenet  which  Matthew  expressed  and 
maintained  in  his  Bohemian  sermons  was  that  of  daily  com- 
munion, which  he  warmly  commended  to  those  who  assisted 
at  his  sermons  at  St.  Nicholas'  Church.1 

These  opinions  were  undoubtedly  contrary  to  the  teaching 
of  Rome,  and  perhaps  approached  more  closely  to  what  after- 
wards became  known  as  a  Protestant  standpoint  than  did 
any  assertions  of  Hus.  The  archiepiscopal  consistory  found 
in  these  sermons  a  welcome  reason  for  taking  proceedings 

1  Kybal,  Matej  z.  Janova. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  51 

against  Matthew,  who  had  previously  already  incurred  their 
distrust  and  dislike.  His  life  of  study,  untouched  by  even 
the  slightest  taint  of  immorality,  contrasted  in  a  very  vivid 
manner  with  that  of  most  of  the  priests  of  Prague,  whose 
time  was  spent  in  hunting,  dicing,  feasting,  and  other  even 
less  edifying  occupations.  In  October  1388,  a  decree  of  the 
synod  of  Prague  declared  that  no  layman  should  be  admitted 
to  communion  oftener  than  once  a  month,  and  shortly  after- 
wards it  was  decreed  that  the  laymen  should  be  enjoined  to 
address  their  prayers  to  pictures,  and  believe  in  their  mira- 
culous powers.  A  year  later,  Janov  was  summoned  to  appear 
before  the  archiepiscopal  court,  and  he  was  obliged  to  retract 
his  views  at  a  solemn  meeting  of  the  synod  on  October  19, 
1398. *  As  a  punishment  Matthew  was  forbidden  to  celebrate 
mass,  preach,  or  administer  the  sacrament  anywhere  except 
in  his  parish  church  at  Velika-Ves. 

"  Matthew's  recantation,"  as  Dr.  Kybal  writes,  "  was 
made  unwillingly  and  insincerely."  He  refers  to  the  incident 
frequently  in  the  Regulae,  where  he  speaks  of  those  "  who 
honour  to  the  highest  degree  the  saints  in  heaven  while  they 
persecute  the  saintly  Christians  who  are  near  to  them  and  are 
their  contemporaries;  those  who  rob  the  saints  who  live  at 
their  time,  while  they  clothe  the  bones  of  the  dead  saints  in 
gold  and  silver;  who  sanctify  the  apostles  and  other  preachers 
who  are  dead,  while  they  condemn  and  insult  the  faithful 
preachers  and  priests  who  live  at  their  own  time."  2 

As  Matthew  considered  that  the  judgment  against  him 
was  entirely  unjust,  the  result  of  the  wickedness  of  worldly- 
minded  men,  he  continued  to  preach  and  write  in  the  same 
spirit  as  before;   he  continued  to  enjoin  the  faithful  to  receive 

1  The  retractation  is  published  by  Palacky,  Documenta  mag.  Joannis 
Hus,  pp.  699  and  700.  The  statements  retracted  are  exactly  those  mentioned 
above.  As  regards  the  important  question  of  the  veneration  of  images, 
Janov  declared:  "  Dico  .  .  .  quod  secundum  institutionem  et  consuetudinem 
sanctae  matris  ecclesiae  debent  imagines  ad  honorem  illorum  quos  designant, 
adorari  et  venerari.   .  ." 

*  Quoted  by  Kybal  from  a  MS.  of  Janov. 


52  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

communion  frequently,  and  his  language  with  regard  to  the 
worship  of  images  became  even  stronger  than  before.  He 
writes  *  that  "  the  simple-minded  are  seduced  in  a  damnable 
manner,  for  they  confer,  as  it  were,  a  divine  power  on  a 
wooden  or  stony  image,  and  regard  it  with  amazement,  rever- 
ence, and  affection,  forgetting  that  it  is  but  a  senseless  and 
lifeless  block  of  wood,  neither  blessed  nor  consecrated  by  the 
word  of  God.  Verily,  any  gallows  is  more  acceptable  and 
more  useful  in  a  city  than  some  much-honoured  picture  or 
statue  in  a  church,  for  by  means  of  the  gallows  God's  justice 
is  accomplished  and  indicated,  and  the  wickedness  of  the 
people  is  diminished.  ..." 

If  we  recall  the  superstitious  terror  and  abhorrence  which 
the  "  gallows-tree  "  inspired  in  mediaeval  days,  we  will  see  the 
force  and  the  temerity  of  Janov's  comparison. 

As  was  inevitable,  the  authorities  of  the  church  again 
began  to  take  proceedings  against  him.  In  1392,  Matthew 
was  ordered  to  deliver  up  to  the  vicar  of  the  archbishop  for 
inspection  two  works  which  he  was  known  to  have  written. 
We  have,  however,  no  account  of  the  result  of  this  examina- 
tion. It  was  a  more  serious  matter  when,  in  the  autumn  of 
the  same  year,  Janov  was  again  summoned  to  appear  at  the 
archiepiscopal  law  court.  It  appears  probable  that  Arch- 
bishop Jenzenstein  had,  in  consequence  of  the  contents  of  the 
books  mentioned  above,  again  forbidden  him  to  officiate  as  a 
priest  at  Prague,  and  particularly  to  administer  the  sacrament 
daily  to  laymen.  On  the  formal  promise  of  Matthew  that  he 
would  henceforth  obey  all  orders  of  his  ecclesiastical  superiors, 
he  was  now  reinstated  in  all  his  dignities  as  a  priest  and 
preacher  at  Prague. 

Probably,  previous  to  his  second  appearance  at  the  archi- 
episcopal court,  Matthew's  mind  had  undergone  a  profound 
change,  of  which  he  has  given  us  an  account  that  has  great 

1  This  eloquent  passage  (in  Regulae,  Book  V.)  is  too  long  for  quotation 
in  its  entirety. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  53 

psychological  interest.  It  has  already  been  mentioned  that 
he  had,  like  most  priests  of  his  time,  unhesitatingly  availed 
himself  of  the  chance  of  gaining  a  livelihood  by  means  of  a 
papal  benefice,  the  only  course  often  open  to  an  impecunious 
young  priest.  It  did  not  even  apparently  appear  to  him 
wrong  to  conform  to  a  then  established  custom.  On 
Matthew's  return  to  Prague,  where  he  had,  as  already  men- 
tioned, at  first  obtained  ecclesiastical  dignities,  but  no  regular 
income,  a  great  change  came  over  him.  He  had  hitherto 
been  very  ambitious,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  as  a  subtle 
theologian  and  profound  philosopher  he  might,  under  other 
circumstances,  have  ranked  high  among  the  writers  of  the 
fourteenth  century.1  But  he  now  cast  from  him  all  worldly 
thoughts  and  ambitions.  In  his  own  words:2  "As  long  as 
the  '  thick  wall '  of  desire  for  riches  and  worldly  fame  sur- 
rounded me  and  obscured  the  atmosphere,  up  to  that  time  as 
a  prisoner  or  a  drunkard,  I  reposed  softly.  My  only  endeavour 
was  to  dwell  splendidly  '  in  painted  tents,'  and  as  one  who 
dwelleth  in  an  inn,  I  reflected  and  thought  of  nothing  but 
that  which  attracts  the  eyes  and  rejoices  the  ears.  This 
lasted  till  it  pleased  the  Lord  Jesus  to  snatch  me  away  from 
these  walls,  as  a  burning  brand  plucked  out  of  the  fire.  .  .  . 
And  the  Lord  led  me  to  the  dwelling  of  sorrow,  adversity, 
shame,  and  contempt.  Now,  only  when  I  had  become  poor 
and  of  a  contrite  spirit,  and  trembled  at  the  word  of  the  Lord,3 
I  began  to  wonder  at  the  truths  of  holy  Scripture,  and  how 
they  have  been  necessarily,  irrevocably  and  continually  ful- 
filled in  the  whole  and  in  all  parts.  Then  also  I  began  at 
last  to  wonder  at  the  great  artfulness  of  Satan,  who  with  his 
thick  darkness  has  surrounded  the  bodies  and  covered  up  the 
eyes    even    of    great    philosophers.4     Then    particularly    the 

1  It  is  beyond  the  purpose  of  this  work  to  enter  into  this  subject.     I  must 
refer  the  reader  to  Dr.  Kybal's  brilliant  study. 
a  Kybal,  Mate]  z.  Janova,  pp.  27-28. 
•  Isaiah,  lxvi.  2. 
« i.e.,  of  the  University  of  Paris  (note  of  Dr.  Kybal). 


54  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

dearest  crucified  Jesus  opened  my  mind  that  I  might  under- 
stand the  passages  of  Scripture  that  were  befitting  to  the 
times,  and  He  raised  up  my  spirit  that  I  might  perceive  how 
the  people  were  absorbed  by  vanity.  .  .  .  And  reading,  I 
clearly  and  rightly  understood  the  abomination  of  desolation 
which  penetrated  the  holy  spot,  strongly,  broadly,  and  widely. 
And  I  was  much  frightened,  and  I  was  seized  with  sobbing, 
which  continueth  now  and  for  ever.  And  I  began  to  repeat 
the  complaint  of  Jeremiah,  calling  on  all  to  lament  over  the 
crimes  of  Jerusalem,  the  daughter  of  his  nation.  Then  there 
entered  into  my  breast  a  certain  fire,  even  bodily  perceivable, 
new,  strong,  strange,  but  very  sweet.  This  fire  endures 
within  me  up  to  now,  and  the  stronger  it  burns  the  more  am 
I  in  my  prayers  raised  up  to  God  and  to  the  Lord  Jesus  the 
Crucified;  it  (the  fire)  never  disappears  except  when  I  forget 
Jesus  Christ,  or  speak  vainly,  or  become  lax  in  the  discipline 
of  eating  and  drinking  (i.e.,  in  fasting).  Then  am  I  immedi- 
ately obscured  perceivably,  and  become  useless  for  all  good 
works  till  I  again  turn  to  Jesus  Christ  with  much  groaning 
and  many  lamentations.  .  .  .  When  I  tremble  before  the 
judgment-seat  of  Christ,  who  so  soon  casts  men  into  the  hell 
of  condemnation  and  again  leads  them  back  into  the  state  of 
grace,  then  this  fire  returns  to  me  and  surrounds  anew  my 
inner  man,  so  that  I  am  prepared  for  everything  that  is  good. 
And  then  I  receive  this  suggestion  which  is  written  down  and 
runs  thus:  '  Son  of  man,  pierce  the  wall.'  And  I  obeyed  the 
voice  of  my  God  and  I  pierced  the  wall  in  a  threefold  fashion, 
that  is  by  preaching  daily  to  the  people,  by  constantly  hearing 
confessions  and  by  writing  this  *  (book)  with  much  solicitude 
both  by  day  and  by  night." 

It  is  obvious  through  this  self-confession  that  it  was  by 
means  of  the  humiliations  and  tribulations  of  his  troublous 
life  that  Matthew  was  led  to  renounce  the  ambitions  of  his 
youth,  and  even  to  denounce  strongly  the  corrupt  system  of 

1  i.e.  the  Regulae. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  55 

the  papal  administration  of  that  time.  That  a  man  who 
believed  himself  to  be  acting  under  the  immediate  inspiration 
of  God  should  little  heed  the  commands  of  his  archbishop  was 
inevitable.  Matthew  continued  both  in  word  and  in  writing 
to  attack  the  immorality  of  the  clergy  and  the  idolatrous 
worship  of  images.  He  also  extolled  the  frequent  com- 
munion of  laymen,  as  he  had  done  before,  and  administered 
the  sacrament  daily  to  all  the  faithful  who  desired  it.  Yet 
we  have  no  knowledge  of  any  further  conflict  between  the 
archbishop  and  Janov  after  the  one  that  took  place  in  1392. 
Archbishop  Jenzenstein  was  entirely  engrossed  in  a  violent 
dispute  with  King  Venceslas  IV.  of  Bohemia,  and  in  1394 
Matthew  of  Janov  passed  away  from  the  jurisdiction  of  all 
earthly  judges;  he  died  on  November  30  of  that  year. 

It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  Janov  was  a  very 
fertile  writer.  It  will  here,  however,  be  sufficient  to  refer  to 
his  Regidae  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti.  The  book  was  his 
masterpiece  and  his  life-work,  and  we  meet  in  it  with  all 
Matthew's  predominant  ideas  and  theories.  The  book,  one 
of  the  most  precious  documents  of  the  Bohemian  reformation, 
long  remained  almost  unknown,  hidden  away  in  various 
manuscripts,  not  one  of  which  contained  its  complete  contents. 
Dr.  Kybal,  the  author  of  a  valuable  life  of  Matthew  of  Janov, 
to  which  I  have  frequently  referred,  is  now  engaged  in  editing 
and  publishing  the  Regulae,  and  part  of  the  work  has  already 
appeared.  Matthew  himself  is  our  authority  with  regard  to 
the  origin  of  the  Regulae.  He  had  at  first  intended  to  treat 
his  subject  in  but  one  book,  but  then  added  two  more,  and 
later  on  a  fourth  and  fifth.1     Here,  as  so  frequently,  Janov 

1  "  Ilium  enim  principaliter,  id  est  solum  ilium  primum  intendebam  sub 
brevitate  scripsisse.  Dehinc  pius  Jhesus  michi  dilatavit,  et  aperiens  ostium 
me  implevit  suis  copiis,  ut  duos  libros,  puta  secundum  et  tercium  scripserim, 
de  indicio  et  discrecione  verorum  et  falsorum  christianorum  et  prisnum 
pseudoprophetarum  et  doctorum.  Dehinc  alios  duos  libros,  scilicet  quartum 
et  quintum  solum  et  simpliciter  de  communicacione  in  Christi  Jhesu  ecclesia 
deinci  et  supertremendi  veri  corporis  et  sanguinis  Jhesu."  Regulae  Proemium, 
p.  16  of  Dr.  Kybal's  edition. 


56  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

believed  himself  to  be  writing  under  the  direct  inspiration 
of  Jesus,  by  whose  order  he,  as  he  tells  us,  extended  his 
work.  In  the  introduction  (proemium)  quoted  below,  which 
Matthew  probably  wrote  after  the  completion  of  his  work,  he 
indicates  the  two  leading  ideas  which  inspired  his  book  and 
to  which  he  ever  returns  from  the  by-paths  of  scholastic 
philosophy,  whose  redundancy  and  frequent  repetitions 
render  the  study  of  Matthew's  work  an  arduous  task.  These 
two  "  Leitmotive  "  are  the  definition  of  true  Christianity  in 
distinction  from  false  Christianity  and"the  theory  of  the  utility 
of  the  frequent  communion  of  laymen.  It  had  been  customary 
with  writers  anterior  to  Dr.  Kybal  to  dwell  mainly  on  the  first 
of  these  two  points,  and  the  Regulae  were  frequently  described 
as  the  book  of  true  and  false  Christianity.  Dr.  Kybal  first 
pointed  out  the  great  importance  which  Janov  attaches  to 
the  veneration  of  the  sacrament  and  the  great  stress  which 
he  lays  on  the  frequent  communion  of  laymen.  From  this 
theory  indirectly,  and  by  no  means  through  the  direct  in- 
fluence of  Janov,  the  doctrine  of  utraquism  sprang. 

To  notice  briefly  the  contents  of  the  Regulae,  it  may  be 
stated  that  the  first  book  which  follows  on  the  introduction 
deals  of  the  distinction  between  true  and  false  prophets  accord- 
ing to  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  veneration  of  the  holy 
sacrament.1  Conformably  to  its  twofold  subject,  the  book 
is  divided  into  two  tractatus  (treatises).  In  the  first  of 
these  Matthew  warns  his  readers  against  false  prophets 
(pseudoprophetae) ,  who,  he  states,  are  more  numerous  than 
true  prophets.2  He  then  endeavours  to  instruct  the  faith- 
ful as  to  the  means  by  which  they  can  distinguish  them. 
The  second  treatise,  which  deals  of  the  sacrament  of  the  altar 

1  The  titles  of  the  different  books  and  treatises  are  different  in  the  various 
manuscripts  of  the  Regulae.  In  Dr.  Kybal's  edition  the  first  book  is  entitled: 
De  Discrecione  Spirituum  in  Doctoribus  et  Prophetis  et  de  Venerabili  Sacramento. 

2 "  Ex  hoc  contigit  quod  multi  pseudoprophete  exierunt  in  mundum, 
similiter  et  prophete  veraces,  licet  pauciores."  Regulae,  p.  21  of  Dr.  Kybal's 
edition. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  57 

and  communion,  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  parts  of  Janov's 
great  work.  He  has  here  expressed  most  fully  and  most 
clearly  his  views  on  the  all-important  subject  of  the  sacrament, 
to  which  he  refers  very  frequently  in  the  Regulae.  "  In  these 
days,"  Janov  writes,1  "  some  dispute  on  the  frequent  receiv- 
ing of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  by  laymen;  among 
these  are  preachers  also  and  doctors  who  have  expressed  their 
views,  some  in  favour,  others  in  opposition  to  this  practice, 
basing  their  opinions  either  on  reasoning  or  on  the  Scriptures." 
Janov  then  proceeds  in  the  usual  scholastic  fashion,  abounding 
in  "  distinctions  "  and  classifications,  to  place  before  his 
readers,  and  then  to  refute,  the  arguments  of  those  who  were 
opposed  to  frequent  communion.  He  strongly  blames  the 
priests  who,  from  haughtiness,  refused  to  administer  the 
sacrament  frequently  to  laymen,  though  David  called  it  the 
"  nourishment  of  the  poor,"  meaning  hereby  the  laymen  in 
distinction  from  the  priesthood.  Not  only  to  men  should 
frequent  communion  be  allowed,  but  also  to  women,  whose 
religious  fervour  Matthew  greatly  extolls.2  The  great  part 
played  by  women  in  the  Hussite  movement  has  not  yet  been 
sufficiently  noticed,  and  we  only  occasionally  find — as  here — 
some  mention  of  it  in  the  scanty  records  of  the  period  that 
have  been  preserved.  Later  on  the  Bohemian  women  were 
on  Zizka's  hill  to  seal  with  their  blood  their  devotion  to  the 
Hussite  cause. 

The  second  book  of  the  Regulae  also  contained  two  treatises. 
The  first  one  is  entitled,   De  Hypocrisi,  and  Matthew  here 

1  Regulae,  p.  5 1 . 

2  We  meet  with  this  praise  of  the  religious  fervour  of  women  frequently 
in  this  treatise:  "  Puta  quod  mulieres  que  sunt  in  Christo  in  hoc  tempore 
viros  in  virtutibus  anticurrunt."  ..."  Nam  cum  sacerdotes  stertunt  et 
nauseant  vix  debito  et  officio  et  alias  raro  missas  sanctissimas  dignati  calebrare 
mulieres  summis  desideriis  et  studiis  festinant  cottidie  vel  quanto  eis  saepius 
potest  fieri,  corpus  et  sanguinem  Jhesu  Christi  manducare  et  potare."  .  .  . 
"  Istis  temporibus  surgunt  mulieres  virgines  et  vidue  et  apprehendunt 
disciplinam,  agunt  strenue  penitentiam  properant  ad  divina  sacramenta  et 
preripiunt  viris  regnum  celorum  circa  vanitatem  hujus  seculi  occupatis." 
(Regulae,  Lib.  I.,  tr.  2,  passim.) 


58  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

expresses  himself  strongly  on  the  subject  of  hypocrites,  par- 
ticularly among  the  priesthood.  He  draws  attention  to  the 
insufficiency  of  the  precautions  taken  by  the  church  to  guard 
against  such  men,  while  it  is  always  prepared  to  be  watchful  of 
heretics.1  The  second  treatise,  which  formed  part  of  this  book, 
has  not  been  preserved,  though  we  are  acquainted  with  its 
name,  De  Distincta  Veritate. 

In  the  third  book,  which  contains  no  less  than  six  treatises, 
Matthew  can  be  said  to  have  formulated  his  views  most 
clearly.  The  book  shows  evidence  of  the  fact  that  the  different 
books  of  the  Regulae  were  written  separately  and  at  different 
times,  though  Janov  afterwards  united  them  into  one  entirety. 
The  third  book,  and  indeed  all  parts  of  the  Regulae,  therefore, 
teem  with  repetitions,  and  the  writer  who  endeavours  to 
briefly  delineate  the  contents  of  the  work  constantly  runs  the 
risk  of  committing  the  same  offence.  In  the  first  treatise 
Matthew  expounds  a  tenet  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  his 
teaching.  Jesus  Christ  himself,  he  writes,  is  the  primary 
principle  of  truth,  and  the  only  sufficient  guidance  and  law  of 
Christian  life.  The  second  treatise,  De  Testibus  Veritates, 
refers  to  the  prophets  and  apostles  as  the  witnesses  of  truth; 
and  in  the  third,  Matthew  again  broaches  his  views  concerning 
the  necessity  of  frequent  communion.  He  quotes  numerous 
witnesses,  beginning  by  Jesus  Christ  and  ending  by  contem- 
poraries such  as  Adalbert  Ranco,  in  support  of  his  favourite 
doctrine.  The  fourth  treatise,  On  the  Unity  and  Universality 
of  the  Church,  criticises  bitterly  the  depraved  state  of  the 
church  at  the  time  of  Janov.  The  idea,  outlined  in  this 
treatise,  that  the  evil  state  of  the  church  foreshadows  the  end 
of  the  world  and  the  appearance  of  Antichrist,  is  fully  de- 
veloped in  the  fifth  treatise,  De  Antichristo.      As  Matthew 

1  "  Competenter  vigilatur  contra  hereticos  et  vigilatum  est  dudum  copiose 
per  doctores;  tamen  contra  nocentissimos  ypocritas  et  luciformes  (diabolical) 
non  puto  esse  satis  attentos  usque  modo  christianos  dei  neque  satis  vigilare. 
(Regulae,  p.  109.) 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  59 

himself  tells  us,1  it  was  the  influence  of  Milic,  who  had  dealt 
with  the  same  subject,  that  induced  Matthew  to  write  his 
treatise.  It  differs  little  from  the  many  other  eschatological 
works  written  in  Bohemia  at  this  period.  This  treatise,  which 
was  long  attributed  to  Hus  and  figures  in  the  older  editions  of 
his  work,  obtained  more  celebrity  than  any  other  work  of 
Janov,  and  was  translated  both  into  German  and  into 
Bohemian.  It  contains,  in  numerous  "  distinctions,"  a 
mystic  description  of  Antichrist.  The  sixth  and  last  treatise 
has  great  interest  with  regard  to  the  development  of  the 
Hussite  movement.  It  is  entitled  De  Abominacione  in  Loco 
Sancto,  and,  to  borrow  the  words  of  Dr.  Kybal,  is  full  of  general 
and  impassioned  attacks  on  the  ecclesiastical  community  of 
his  day,  founded  on  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
of  the  Revelation.  Perhaps  fearing  that  the  vehemence  of  his 
attacks  might  be  attributed  to  personal  motives,  Matthew 
here  lays  particular  stress  on  the  point  that  it  was  only  his 
love  of  Christ  that  induced  him  to  write.2 

The  fourth  book  of  the  Regulae  contains  but  one  treatise, 
which  is  entitled  A  Question  whether  it  is  permissible  to  each 
and  all  holy  Christians  to  receive  Communion  daily,  that  is  to 
say,  to  partake  of  (manducare)  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 
Matthew  here  again  enters  on  a  subject  which  obviously  in- 
terested him  more  than  any  other.  This  treatise  takes  the 
form  of  an  answer  given  by  Matthew  to  a  friend,  a  pious  priest 
who  was  troubled  by  the  question  of  frequent  communion 
that  then  occupied  all  thoughtful  minds  in  Bohemia. 
Matthew  here,  as  elsewhere,  appears  as  a  staunch  upholder 
of  frequent  communion.3     He  vigorously  attacks  those  priests 

1  Dr.  Kybal,  Matej  z.  Janova,  p.  63,  n.  3. 

2  "  Nam  et  ista  scribens  fateor  quod  nihil  aliud  me  in  illud  perurget  nisi 
dileccio  domini  nostri  Jesu  Crucifixi  cujus  stigmata  pro  modulo  mee  infirmi- 
tatis  vilitatis  in  me  ipso  cupio  deportare  et  quia  igitur  zelus  domus  sue 
comedit  et  opprobria  exprobancium  Jesu  crucifixo  ceciderunt  super  me,  ideo 
ista  loquor  et  scribo."     {Regulae,  quoted  by  Dr.  Kybal,  Matej  z  Janova.) 

3  .  .  .  "  meipsum  ad  hoc  obtuli  et  distinavi  in  Christo  Jesu  ut  sim  promotor 
et  propugnator  crebre  communionis  corporis  et  sanguinis  domini  Jesu 
Christi.  .  .  ."      (Kybal,  Matej  z.  Janova,  p.  72,  n.  3.) 


60  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

who  hold  laymen  in  contempt,  calling  beasts  and  ribalds  those 
poor  plebeians  who  wish  to  communicate  frequently.1  The 
monks  in  particular,  he  writes,  endeavour,  impelled  by  spiritual 
pride  and  hatred,  to  prevent  laymen  from  receiving  the  sacra- 
ment frequently. 

Very  similar  to  that  of  the  fourth  is  the  subject  of  the  fifth 
book  of  the  Regulae,  which  is  entitled  De  Corpore  Christi.  In  this 
treatise  Matthew  addresses  a  friend,  a  layman,  who  desired  to 
frequently  receive  the  sacrament,  and  had  in  consequence  often 
been  reproved  by  the  priests.  Matthew  here  repeats  many 
of  his  previous  arguments  in  favour  of  frequent  communion. 

It  is  not  easy  to  form  a  general  opinion  of  the  character 
and  the  writings  of  Matthew  of  Janov.  The  brilliant  work 
of  Dr.  Kybal,  who  has  for  the  first  time  given  us  a  thorough 
insight  into  the  nature  of  Matthew,  has,  it  can  almost  be  said, 
rendered  him  yet  more  enigmatical.  Janov  will  never  obtain 
popular  favour,  as  the  silence  of  his  contemporaries  and  im- 
mediate successors  proves.  The  man  was  soon  forgotten, 
though,  as  recent  research  has  proved,  his  writings  largely 
influenced  the  Hussite  movement.  The  sympathy  and  venera- 
tion which  the  absolute  simplicity,  self-abnegation,  enthu- 
siasm, indomitable  faith,  tender  kindness  even  to  the  most 
venomous  enemies  that  characterise  Hus  have  obtained  for 
that  great  Bohemian,  will  never  be  awarded  to  Matthew  of 
Janov.  All  the  writings  of  Janov  are  tainted  with  bitterness, 
and  they  sometimes  convey  an  impression  of  insincerity, 
though  this  ceases  to  be  the  case  when  Matthew  writes — accord- 
ing to  his  belief, — under  the  mystical  inspiration  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Matthew's  repeated  renunciations  of  opinions  which  he  con- 
tinued to  hold  strengthen  this  impression,  and  it  is  impossible, 

1  "  Hii  sunt  qui  ferme  quemlibet  de  plebe  dedignantur,  bestias  et  ribaldos 
pauperes  plebeios  audacter  nuncupando.  .  .  .  Habent  de  more  quidem 
hujusmodi  stomachari  ad  frequenter  sacramento  communicantes:  "  Isti 
Reghardi  et  Begynejam  nituntur  sacerdotibus  simulari.  Quis  dyabolus  ad 
hoc  eas  consecravit  (Kybal,  Matej  z.  Janova,  p.  224,  n.  2).  Here  as  every- 
where I  have  used  Janov's  own  spelling  as  transcribed  by  Dr.  Kybal  from 
the  manuscripts. 


THE  FORERUNNERS  OF  HUS  61 

when  reading  his  eloquent  denunciations  of  the  grasping  ex- 
tortions of  the  papal  see,  not  to  remember  that  he  also  had 
availed  himself  of  the  advantages  which  resulted  from  the 
system  of  papal  benefices.  It  must  indeed  be  admitted  that 
this  was  no  exceptional  deed  on  the  part  of  Matthew,  and  that 
he  was  driven  to  it  by  sheer  want  of  means.  Perhaps  "  his 
poverty  but  not  his  will  consented."  Both  the  life  and  the 
writings  of  Janov  teem  with  contradictions.  As  Dr.  Kybal 
has  truly  said  of  his  works,  we  find  in  them  entire  sub- 
mission to  the  church,  and  on  the  other  hand  haughty  self- 
confidence  and  audacious  criticism  of  the  ecclesiastical 
system,  sometimes  timidity,  sometimes  the  free  expression  of 
extreme  views,  sometimes  consciousness  of  the  importance 
of  the  hierarchy,  of  which  Matthew  himself  formed  part,  and 
conservative  views,  at  other  times  openly  expressed  popular 
and  democratic  opinions.  Such  a  man  could  never  be  re- 
vered by  the  people  as  were  Milic  and  Hus. 

Yet  it  would  be  very  erroneous  to  underrate  the  importance 
of  Matthew  in  connection  with  the  Hussite  movement.  He 
was  by  far  the  most  learned  of  the  forerunners  of  Hus,  and 
as  a  thorough  scholarly  theologian  he  greatly  influenced  the 
masters  of  the  University  of  Prague,  who  by  the  vicissitudes 
of  civil  war  became,  soon  after  the  death  of  Hus,  the  supreme 
arbitrators  on  religious  matters  in  Bohemia.  Chief  among 
the  pupils  of  Janov  was  Master  Jacobellus  of  Stribro,  the 
originator  of  utraquism.  Jacobellus  entirely  adopted  Janov's 
views  regarding  the  advent  of  Antichrist,  and  he  has  in  his 
work  on  that  subject  incorporated  large  parts  of  Janov's 
treatise,  though,  as  was  then  frequently  done,  he  omitted  to 
mention  the  name  of  the  writer  from  whom  he  borrowed.1  It 
was  formerly  also  believed  that  Jacobellus  derived  from  Janov 
his  doctrine  of  utraquism  or  communion  in  the  two  kinds. 

1  Dr.  Kybal  has  published  an  interesting  article  on  the  connection  between 
Matthew  of  Janov  and  Jacobellus  of  Stribro  in  the  Cesky  Casopis  Historicky 
{Bohemian  Historical  Review,  vol.  xi.). 


62  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

The  utraquist  archbishop  of  Prague,  John  of  Rokycan, 
maintained  at  the  council  of  Basel  that  Matthew  of  Janov  had 
first  taught  in  Bohemia  the  doctrine  of  utraquism  whose 
emblem,  the  chalice,  became  so  distinctive  a  feature  in  the 
Hussite  wars.  Recent  research  has  proved  to  a  certainty 
that  Janov  never  taught  or  preached  utraquism.1  He,  how- 
ever, always  insisted  on  the  right  of  laymen  to  receive 
communion  frequently,  and  maintained  that  through  the 
sacrament  a  mystical  union  is  established  between  God  and 
the  worthy  communicant.  This  supreme  favour  and  grace 
should  not,  Matthew  declared,  be  reserved  to  priests,  but  should 
be  granted  to  laymen  also.  Saintly  laymen,  he  maintains, 
have  the  right  to  receive  communion  as  frequently  as  priests, 
Dr.  Kybal  has  first  pointed  out  how  close  the  connection  is 
between  the  principle  of  the  frequent  communion  of  laymen, 
as  maintained  by  Janov,  and  the  utraquism  of  the  Hussites 
of  the  fifteenth  century.  Both  claims  were  founded  on  a 
democratic  basis  and  were  protests  against  the  theory  of  the 
inferiority  of  laymen  which  priests  —  and  often  the  most 
unworthy  priests — were  maintaining  in  Bohemia  at  this  period. 

1  This  has  been  principally  proved  by  Dr.  Kalousik  in  his  erudite  treatise, 
O  Historii  Kalicha  v.  dobach  predhusitskych  (On  the  history  of  the  chalice  in 
pre-Hussite  times). 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   YOUTH   OF   HUS 

The  German  writers  have  of  late  years  endeavoured  to 
establish  a  theory  regarding  the  problems  that  confront  the 
historian  when  he  attempts  to  define  to  what  extent  general 
conditions  and  to  what  extent  the  acts  of  individuals  should 
be  considered  in  history.  In  other  words,  the  historian  should 
inquire  to  what  extent  events  occurred  in  consequence  of  the 
social  condition,  the  geographical  situation,  and  the  political 
position  of  a  country,  and  to  what  extent  the  personality  of 
one  great  and  representative  man  influenced  the  course  of 
history.  If  we  attempt  to  solve  this  problem  in  connection 
with  Hus,  we  undoubtedly  find  that  his  individuality  was 
largely  the  cause  of  the  momentous  events  which  have 
rendered  his  name  famous.  Before  Hus's  time  Milic  had  been 
a  saintly  enthusiast  and  a  vigorous  denouncer  of  the  sins  and 
corruption  of  the  times.  Matthew  of  Janov,  one  of  the  most 
learned  theologians  of  the  period,  had  energetically  attacked 
the  evil  rule  of  Rome  which  the  schism  had  rendered  yet  more 
scandalous,  and  he  had  spoken  strongly  against  the  idolatrous 
veneration  of  pictures  and  statues.  Hus  alone  possessed  the''" 
qualities  of  a  great  popular  leader.  His  absolute  self-renounce- 1 
ment,  the  indomitable  courage  with  which  he  met  moral  and 
physical  pain  of  every  description  for  the  cause  which  he 
firmly  believed  to  be  that  of  God,  his  enthusiastic  devotion 
to  the  Slavic  and  particularly  to  the  Bohemian  race,  his 
striking  and  popular  eloquence — all  combined  to  make  him 
the  idol  of  the  Bohemian  people,  whose  greatest  representative 
in  the  world's  story  he  remains. 

63 


r 


64  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

If  we  endeavour  to  ascertain  how  great  our  knowledge  of 
the  events  of  the  life  of  Hus  is,  we  meet  with  a  great  contrast. 
While  we  have  numerous  and  varied  accounts  of  his  later  life 
— the  events  during  his  imprisonment  can  be  traced  almost 
day  by  day — very  little  is  known  of  the  early  life  of  the  great 
Bohemian  church-reformer.  The  almost  entirely  absent  con- 
temporary records  are  replaced  by  later  legends  which  are 
mostly  attributable  to  members  of  the  community  of  the 
Bohemian  brethren,  who  believed  themselves  to  have  most 
purely  preserved  the  teaching  of  Hus.  Many  of  these  legends 
are  touching  and  not  devoid  of  historical  value.  We  are 
mainly  indebted  to  the  careful  studies  recently  published  by 
Professor  Flajshans,  the  greatest  authority  on  Hus  of  the 
present  day,  for  whatever  knowledge  of  the  youth  and  early 
education  of  Hus  we  possess. 

We  are  unable  to  state  positively  in  what  year  Hus  was 
born.  The  oldest  traditions  stated  that  he  was  born  on  July 
6,  1373.  More  recently  such  great  authorities  as  Palacky 
and  Tomek  gave  July  6,  1369,  as  the  date  of  the  birth  of  Hus. 
According  to  the  latest  researches  the  exact  year  of  his  birth 
cannot  be  affirmed,  but  it  undoubtedly  took  place  in  the 
period  between  1373  and  1375.  The  day  is  quite  uncertain. 
The  tradition  that  Hus  was  born  on  July  6  is  merely  founded 
on  a  fanciful  analogy  with  the  day  of  his  death,  which 
occurred  on  July  6. 

John  Hus,  or,  "  of  Husinec,"  was  born  in  the  village  of 
Husinec  near  the  small  town  of  Prachatice,  which  is  not  far 
from  the  frontiers  of  Bavaria.  This  fact  deserves  notice,  as 
the  racial  strife  which  is  the  keynote  of  Bohemian  history  at 
all  periods  has  always  raged  most  fiercely  in  those  districts 
where  the  domains  of  the  Bohemian  and  German  language 
meet.  Husinec  and  the  surrounding  district  lie  on  the  line  of 
delimitation  of  the  two  languages,  the  Sprachengrenze  as  it 
is  called  in  German. 

Hus's   father   was   called   Michael,    and   as   it   then   was 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  65 

customary  in  Bohemia  to  describe  men  only  by  their  Christian 
name  and  that  of  their  father,  young  Hus  was  first  known  as 
John  son  of  Michael  (Jan  Michaluv,  in  Bohemian).  At  Prague 
he  was  inscribed  in  the  books  of  the  university  in  accordance 
with  the  name  of  his  native  village  as  John  of  Husinec.  Only 
after  the  year  1398  we  meet  with  the  signature  of  "  John 
Hus  "  or  sometimes  "  John  Hus  of  Husinec."  After  the  year 
1400  the  church-reformer  always  signs  himself  simply  as 
"  John  Hus,"  though  he  is  in  official  documents  often  described 
as  "  Magister  Johannes,  dictus  Hus  de  Husinec."  The  parents 
of  Hus  were  peasants  who  possessed  but  scanty  means,  but 
endeavoured  as  far  as  they  were  able  to  give  a  good  education 
to  young  John,  who  was  his  mother's  favourite  son.  John 
Hus  had  several  brothers,  of  whom,  however,  nothing  is 
known.1 

It  is  probable  that  Hus  received  his  first  education  at  the 
school  of  the  town  of  Prachatice  near  Husinec,  though  here  as 
elsewhere  great  uncertainty  prevails  with  regard  to  the  earliest 
events  in  the  life  of  Hus.  His  mother  is  stated  to  have 
generally  accompanied  him  when  he  walked  to  Prachatice, 
and  an  ancient  legend  tells  us  that  when  he  was  returning 
from  school  one  day  a  sudden  storm  obliged  him  to  seek 
refuge  under  a  rock.  His  mother  joined  him  there,  and 
almost  immediately  afterwards  lightning  struck  a  juniper 
bush  close  by  and  set  fire  to  it.  Hus's  mother  said  that  they 
must  immediately  return  home,  but  young  John  answered, 
"  You  will  see  that  I  also,  like  this  bush,  shall  depart  from 
this  world  in  flames."  a 

It  would  be  very  tempting  to  refer  in  more  detail  to  the 
picturesque  legends  that  are  connected  with  the  youth  of  Hus, 
but  they  would  not,  perhaps,  have  for  English  readers  the  same 

1  The  fact  that  John  Hus  had  brothers  is  only  proved  by  a  passage  in 
one  of  his  letters  written  from  Constance  to  his  disciple  Martin,  in  which  he 
says:  "  Recommendo  tibi  fratres  meos;  carissime  fac  sicut  scis  ad  illos." 
(Palacky,  Documenta  Mag.  Joannis  Hus,  p.  120.) 

2  Flajshans,  Misty  Jan  Hits. 

E 


66  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

interest  that  they  have  for  Hus's  countrymen.  At  an  early 
age,  probably  about  the  year  1389,  young  Hus  proceeded  to 
Prague  to  pursue  his  studies  at  the  university  there.  That 
university  is  henceforth  closely  connected  with  the  life  of  Hus, 
as  it  was  indeed  with  the  whole  history  of  Bohemia  at  this 
;  period.  The  Emperor  Charles,  King  of  Bohemia,  founded 
the  University  of  Prague  in  1348.  As  a  contemporary 
chronicler  writes,1  Charles,  "  inflamed  by  love  of  God  and  im- 
pelled by  his  strong  affection  for  his  neighbours,  wishing 
to  benefit  the  commonwealth  and  laudably  to  exalt  his 
Bohemian  kingdom,"  obtained  from  the  apostolic  see  the 
permission  to  establish  a  university  (studium)  at  Prague. 
Charles,  always  a  great  admirer  of  France,  where  he  had  been 
educated  and  where,  according  to  an  ancient  tradition,  he  had 
studied  at  the  University  of  Paris,  largely  modelled  the  regula- 
tions of  his  new  university  on  those  that  were  then  in  force  in 
Paris.  As  in  Paris,  the  new  university  formed  an  independent 
community  which  enjoyed  complete  autonomy  both  with 
regard  to  civil  and  ecclesiastical  matters.  At  the  head  of  the 
university  was  a  rector  chosen  twice  annually  by  the  members 
of  the  university,  scholars  as  well  as  masters — a  point  that 
deserves  notice,  as  Prague  herein  differed  from  Paris.  The 
rector  exercised  very  extensive  powers  over  the  members  of 
the  university,  whom  he  could  sentence  to  fines,  imprison- 
ment, and  corporal  punishment. 

At  the  foundation  of  the  university  Charles  had  erected  no 
special  buildings  for  the  purposes  of  study.  The  masters 
generally  lectured  in  their  own  dwelling-places  or  at  the 
monasteries  to  which  they  belonged.2  Gradually,  however, 
colleges  sprang  up  on  lines  not  dissimilar  from  those  of  the 

1  Chronicon  Benessii  de  Weilmil,  edited  by  Emler,  p.  517. 

*  See  Tomek,  Deje  University  Prazske  (History  of  the  University  of  Prague) 
and  the  same  author's  Dcjepis  Mesta  Prahy  (History  of  the  Town  of  Prague), 
vol.  hi.,  also  Dr.  S.  Winter,  O  zivote  na  vysokych  skolach  Prazskych  (Life  at  the 
High  Schools  of  Prague) ,  and  the  same  author's  Deje  vysokych  skol  Prazskych 
(History  of  the  High  Schools  of  Prague). 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  67 

Sorbonne  in  Paris.  Charles  himself  founded  the  Carolinum, 
and  shortly  afterwards  colleges,  some  intended  only  for  the 
masters,  others  for  scholars,  also  were  established.  Charles's 
son  and  successor,  Venceslas,  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  his 
father  and  founded  a  college  in  the  Ovocny  trh  (fruit-market) 
which  bore  his  name  and  for  a  time  counted  Hus  among  its 
inmates. 

When  founding  the  University  of  Prague  Charles  had  dis- 
tinctly stated  that  he  had  founded  the  new  establishment 
mainly  for  the  purpose  that  the  Bohemians  might  be  able  to 
pursue  higher  studies  in  their  own  country  without  under- 
taking journeys  to  distant  cities  such  as  Paris,  Oxford,  or 
Bologna ;  only  as  a  secondary  motive  was  the  hope  expressed 
that  in  consequence  of  the  new  foundation  many  foreign 
students  would  be  attracted  to  Prague,  which  Charles  had 
just  greatly  enlarged  by  building  the  "  new  town."  It  was, 
therefore,  undoubtedly  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the 
king  that  the  new  university  had  at  first  a  national  character. 
Thus,  among  the  earliest  teachers  there,  we  find  the  names  of 
John  Moravec,  Albert  Bluduv,  John  of  Dambach,  Bohemians 
by  birth,  who  had  been  educated  at  foreign  universities.  We 
do  not  find  a  single  German  name  among  these  earliest 
teachers.  It  can  therefore  be  said  that  the  University  of 
Prague  was  originally  Bohemian,  though  Latin  was  the 
language  in  which  instruction  was  given.1  During  the  reign 
of  Venceslas  matters  changed,  and  at  the  time  of  the  arrival 
of  Hus  at  Prague  the  Germans  had  obtained  almost  complete 
control  over  the  university. 

The  University  of  Prague  was,  almost  from  its  beginning, 
divided  into  "  nations,"  as  was  customary  in  Paris  and 
Bologna.  The  Bohemian  nation  included  besides  the  students 
from  Bohemia  and  the  county  of  Glatz — then  part  of  the 
country — those  who  belonged  to  Moravia,  Hungary,  and  the 

1  Tadra,  Kultumi  Styky  Cechs  cizinoti  (Cultural  Connection  of  Bohemia 
with  Foreign  Countries),  passim,  particularly  pp.  288-289. 


68  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

southern  Slavic  countries.  The  Bavarian  nation  comprised 
the  students  from  the  Bavarian  principalities  as  well  as  those 
from  Austria,  Suabia,  Franconia,  and  the  Rhinelands.  The 
students  from  Saxony,  Meissen,  and  Thuringia,  with  those 
from  Sweden  and  Denmark,  formed  the  Saxon  nation.  The 
Polish  nation  was  composed  of  Poles,  Russians,  Lithuanians, 
and  Silesians.  Since  the  foundation  of  the  University  of 
Cracow  in  1364,  the  majority  of  the  members  of  this  nation 
was  German.  The  division  into  nations — contrary  to  the 
practice  of  Paris — at  Prague  extended  to  the  masters  also. 
This,  according  to  the  views  of  a  recent  learned  writer,1  largely 
contributed  to  envenom  the  national  dissensions  at  the 
university. 

The  new  university — the  first  one  founded  in  central 
Europe — immediately  attracted  large  crowds  of  students 
from  all  parts  of  Europe.  The  contemporary  chronicler, 
Benes  of  Weitmil,  writes:  "  The  university  became  so  great 
that  nothing  equal  to  it  existed  in  Germany,  and  students 
came  there  from  all  parts  of  the  world — from  England,  France. 
Lombardy,  and  Poland,  and  all  the  surrounding  countries, 
sons  of  nobles  and  princes,  and  prelates  of  the  church  from 
all  parts  of  the  world."  The  students  were  not  all,  as  at  the 
present  day,  men  in  early  youth.  The  "  faculty  "  of  the 
jurists  in  particular,  which  for  a  time  formed  a  separate  body, 
contained  many  men  of  maturer  age.  Many  wealthy  men, 
often  accompanied  by  numerous  servants,  also  came  to 
Prague,  more  for  the  purpose  of  enjoying  the  pleasures  of 
the  capital  than  for  the  purpose  of  study.  This  vast  crowd 
of  students  added  greatly  to  the  population  of  Prague,  and 
contributed  greatly  to  enrich  the  citizens.  The  latter  were 
not,  however,  always  pleased  with  this  great  immigration. 
Among  the  students  were  many  turbulent  and  riotous  men, 
Street  brawls  and  even  fights  were  frequent.  Prague  had 
somewhat  the  appearance  of  Paris  at  the  time  of  Villon.     The 

1  Denifle,  quoted  by  Winter,  Deje  vysokych  skol  Prazskych. 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  6q 

rector  and  beadles  often  proved  unable  to  maintain  order, 
and  in  1374  the  authorities  of  the  university  came  to  an  agree- 
ment with  those  of  the  city,  according  to  which  the  city- 
guards  were  empowered  to  arrest  and  hand  over  to  the  custody 
of  the  rector  turbulent  and  riotous  students.  Other  com- 
plaints also  were  made  against  the  members  of  the  new  univer- 
sity. It  was  stated  that  they  were  followed  everywhere  by 
numerous  undesirable  female  companions.1  It  must,  how- 
ever, be  stated  in  defence  of  the  students  that  the  example 
given  them  by  the  clergy  of  Prague  was  not  a  very  edifying 
one. 

■■<  i  It  was  for  this  turbulent  and  sensuous  capital  that  the  / 
youthful  south  Bohemian  peasant  John  left  the  quiet  of  his 
native  Husinec.  Of  his  early  student-days  we  possess  some- 
what touching  reminiscences,  which  are  scattered  through- 
out his  writings.  It  is  a  peculiarity  of  Hus  that  he  always 
writes  of  his  actions  with  a  truly  saintly  humility,  exaggerat- 
ing in  an  almost  childlike  fashion  every  little  misdeed,  or 
what  he  considered  as  such.  He,  on  the  other  hand,  always 
takes  much  trouble  to  conceal  the  strenuous  work  and  bitter 
self-renunciation  which  were  the  principal  features  of  his 
student-life  at  Prague.  In  a  spirit  that  almost  appears  in- 
spired by  personal  animosity,  recent  German  writers  have 
laid  great  stress  on  Hus's  very  innocent  confessions.  The  son 
of  poor  parents,  Hus  endured  the  sufferings  of  poverty  and 
even  of  hunger,2  and  was  often  obliged  to  sleep  on  the  bare 
ground  and  even  reduced  to  begging  in  the  streets — not,  it  j 

1  The  parishioners  of  St.  Nicholas  in  the  old  town  declared :  "  Quod  multae 
domus  sunt  in  parochia  ipsorum  et  aliis,  ubi  studentes  morantur,  et  rara 
domus  est  in  quibus  morantur  in  qua  non  foverent  meretrices  publicas,  de 
quo  multi  homines  scandalizantur."  Quoted  by  Tomek,  Dejepis  Mesta 
Prahy,  vol.  hi.  p.  284,  n. 

*  Hus  refers  in  his  quaint  manner  to  this  time  when  his  only  food  con- 
sisted of  a  scant  pittance  of  bread  and  peas.  "  As  I,"  he  writes,  "  when  I 
was  a  hungry  little  student,  made  a  spoon  out  of  bread  till  I  had  eaten  the 
peas,  and  then  I  ate  the  spoon  also."  Vyklad  desatera  bozieho  prikazanie 
(Exposition  of  the  Ten  Commandments),  chap,  lxxvii.  p.  278,  of  Erben's 
edition. 


■h 


7o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

must  be  remembered,  a  very  exceptional  occurrence  for  a 
medieval  student  at  a  time  when  the  fame  of  the  mendicant 
orders  was  at  its  height.  Hus  also  endeavoured,  as  he  tells  us, 
to  add  to  his  scanty  means  by  acting  as  singing  boy  and 
ministrant  at  religious  services.  He  appears  to  have  taken 
part  in  the  rough  games  of  his  fellow-students,  though  at  the 
university  he  always  bore  an  excellent  character.  Always  a 
severe  judge  of  himself,  he  confessed  at  a  later  period  that  he 
had  been  very  fond  of  playing  chess,  and  had  even  won  money 
at  that  game.  The  life  of  Hus  became  somewhat  less  hard 
when  he  obtained  admission  to  the  college  which  King 
Venceslas  had  recently  founded  in  the  fruit-market.  Hus 
had  come  to  Prague  to  study  theology,  then  almost  the  only 
career  for  an  impecunious,  but  intelligent  and  studious  young 
man.  In  his  usual  quaintly  humorous  manner  he  tells  that  he 
rejoiced  in  the  thought  of  becoming  a  priest,  as  he  would  then 
have  a  good  dwelling-place  and  clothing  and  be  esteemed  by 
the  people.  It  would  be  unnecessary  to  state — had  not  the 
detractors  of  Hus  expressed  a  contrary  opinion — that  this 
casual  remark  by  no  means  proves  that  Hus  had  not  from  his 
youth  a  strong  religious  vocation  and  a  strong  inclination  to 
theological  studies.  That  he  soon  became  famed  for  his 
piety  in  Prague  is  proved  by  a  legend  that  is  told  of  his 
student-days.  It  was  related  that  Hus  had,  when  reading 
the  legend  of  St.  Lawrence,  asked  himself  whether  he  also 
would  be  able  to  suffer  such  pain  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  He 
immediately  placed  his  hand  on  the  fire  in  the  coal-pan,  and 
firmly  held  it  there  till  one  of  his  companions  drew  it  away. 
Hus,  we  are  told,  then  said:  "  Why  dost  thou  fear  so  small  a 
matter?  I  only  wished  to  test  whether  I  should  have  suffi- 
cient courage  to  bear  but  a  small  part  of  that  pain  which  St. 
Lawrence  endured." 

That  Hus  pursued  his  theological  studies  with  energy  and 
perseverance  is  proved  by  his  rapid  progress  at  the  university. 
He  would,  there  is  little  doubt,  have  become  a  theologian  of 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  71 

the  highest  rank  had  his  life  been  longer  and  less  troubled. 
In  his  early  university  days  Hus  was  not  only  a  firm  adherent 
of  the  Catholic  Church — he  indeed  always  continued  to  con- 
sider himself  as  such — but  he  even  followed  superstitious 
practices  of  the  Roman  Church  which  he  afterwards  con- 
demned. When,  in  1393,  a  year  of  jubilee  was  announced  at 
Prague,  and  letters  of  indulgence  remitting  sins  were  publicly 
sold  at  the  Vysehrad,  Hus  was  among  those  who  availed  them- 
selves of  this  privilege  and,  as  he  himself  tells  us,  spent  his  few 
remaining  coins  in  purchasing  these  supposed  celestial  favours. 
Other  men,  however,  who  were  older  than  Hus  at  this  period, 
already  viewed  with  great  displeasure  this  traffic  in  holy 
things,  and  when,  in  1412,  indulgences  were  again  sold  at 
Prague  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  war  which  Pope  John 
XXIII.  was  waging  against  the  King  of  Naples,  many  were 
mindful  of  the  scandals  caused  by  the  sale  of  indulgences  in 

1393- 

The  University  of  Prague  was  at  that  time  at  the  height  of 
its  fame,  and  Hus  had  the  privilege  of  hearing  the  sermons 
and  lectures  of  many  eminent  men.  Among  them  was  Adal- 
bert Ranco,  who  has  already  been  mentioned,  and  whose 
strongly  anti-papal  views  may  not  have  been  without  in- 
fluence on  the  young  student.  One  of  Hus's  teachers  also 
was  the  famed  preacher,  John  of  Stekna,  whose  sermons  in  the 
Bethlehem  chapel  induced  Hus  to  seek  indulgences  at  the 
Vysehrad,  and  whom  he,  referring  to  his  eloquence,  compares  to 
a  "  sonorous  trumpet."  x  We  have  on  the  whole  but  scanty  ( 
information  concerning  Hus  during  his  stay  at  the  college  in  \ 
the  fruit-market.  Among  his  fellow-students  were  some  men 
with  whom  he  was  again  associated  later  in  life.  Such  men 
were  Jerome  of  Prague,  a  man  somewhat  younger  than  Hus, 
and  Jacob  of  Stribro,  commonly  known  as  Jacobellus,  because 
of  his  diminutive  size,  who  was  the  real  originator  of  utra- 
quism.     The  fates  were  to  be  more  gracious  to  Jacobellus 

1  Hus,  Opera  (Nuremberg  ed.,  1715),  vol.  ii.  p.  65. 


72  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

than  to  his  companions,  for  while  Hus  and  Jerome  perished 
in  the  flames,  Jacobellus  died  peacefully  at  Prague  in  1429  as 
honoured  leader  of  the  utraquist  or  Hussite  church. 

The  plan  of  studies  pursued  by  young  Hus  at  the  university 
was  that  usually  followed  by  youthful  students  of  theology  at 
mediaeval  universities.  Dr.  Flajshans  has  in  his  valuable 
work  on  Hus  given  an  interesting  account  of  these  studies, 
referring  specially  to  the  customs  peculiar  to  the  university  of 
Prague.  Great  importance  was  attached  to  theological  dis- 
putations, in  which  the  subtlety  of  scholastic  distinctions  and 
definitions  found  full  play.  Hus  appears  to  have  shown 
great  aptitude  for  the  exercises,  and  this  no  doubt  accounts 
for  the  skill  and  acuteness  which  he  afterwards  displayed  at 
Constance,  when  confronted  with  the  most  learned  and  most 
Subtle  theologians  of  Europe.  In  1393,  at  an  unusually  early 
age,  Hus  obtained  the  first  of  academic  honours,  that  of 
bachelor  of  arts.  Together  with  him,  several  companions, 
among  them  Jacobellus,  went  through  the  ordeal  of  the  pre- 
vious examinations,  which  took  place  in  the  large  hall  of  the 
Carolinum,  the  college  founded  by  Charles.  Probably  shortly 
afterwards  the  Archbishop  John  of  Jenzenstein  conferred  on 
Hus  the  minor  orders,  though  it  appears  that  he  was  only 
ordained  as  a  priest  considerably  later.  He  continued  mean- 
while to  pursue  successfully  his  academic  career.  In  1394  he 
became  a  bachelor  of  divinity,  and  in  1396  a  master  of  arts. 
In  1402  he  became,  at  an  unusually  early  age,  for  the  first  time 
rector  of  the  university.  It  was  probably  in  1400  that  Hus 
was  ordained  a  priest,  but  as  Dr.  Lechler  has  noted,  Hus,  like 
Melanchthon,  who  played  so  great  a  part  in  the  German  re- 
formation, never  obtained  the  degree  of  doctor  of  divinity. 
Though  Hus  had  from  the  first  been  noted  for  his  piety,  his 
religious  enthusiasm,  as  he  has  told  us,  and  contemporary 
writers  confirm,  became  yet  greater  after  he  had  been  ordained. 
Though  Hus,  whose  home  was  in  the  frontier  districts  where 
the  struggle  between  Slav  and  Teuton  is  always  fiercest,  no 


\ 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  73 

doubt  from  his  earliest  youth  was  interested  in  this  strife,  it 
was  also  about  this  time  that  he  began  to  brood  more  seriously 
over  the  wrongs  of  his  country.  In  1401  Bohemia  was  in- 
vaded by  the  German  troops  of  the  Margrave  of  Meissen,  the 
ally  of  Rupert,  Elector  Palatine,  whom  the  enemies  of  King 
Venceslas  had  elected  King  of  the  Romans.  These  troops 
ravaged  Bohemia  in  a  cruel  manner — a  fact  to  which  Hus 
alludes  in  one  of  his  earliest  sermons,  preached  probably  in 
1 401,  in  which  he  also  incidentally  expatiates  on  the  inferior 
position  which  his  countrymen  occupied  in  their  own  country. 
"  The  Bohemians,"  he  said,  "  are  more  wretched  than  dogs  or 
snakes;  for  a  dog  defends  the  couch  on  which  he  lies,  and  if 
another  dog  tries  to  drive  him  away,  he  rights  with  him,  and  a 
snake  does  the  same.  But  us  the  Germans  oppress,  seizing 
all  the  offices  of  state,  while  we  are  silent.  Bohemians  in  the 
kingdom  of  Bohemia,  according  to  all  laws,  indeed  also  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  God  and  according  to  the  natural  order 
of  things,  should  be  foremost  in  all  offices  in  the  Bohemian 
kingdom;  thus  the  French  are  so  in  the  French  kingdom, 
and  the  Germans  in  the  German  lands.  Therefore  should  a 
Bohemian  rule  his  own  subordinates,  and  a  German  German 
(subordinates).  But  of  what  use  would  it  be  if  a  Bohemian, 
not  knowing  German,  became  a  priest  or  a  bishop  in  Germany  ? 
He  assuredly  would  be  as  useful  as  a  dumb  dog  who  cannot 
bark  is  to  a  herd!  And  equally  useless  to  us  Bohemians  is  a 
German;  and  knowing  that  this  (i.e.  the  rule  of  Germans  over 
Bohemians)  is  against  God's  law  and  the  regulations,  I  declare 
it  to  be  illegal." 

The  great  talents  of  Hus  as  a  preacher  appear  to  have  been 
from  the  beginning  recognised  by  his  countrymen.  In  1401 
we  already  find  him  preaching  at  the  church  of  St.  Michael  by 
permission  of  Bernard,  a  monk  of  the  Zderaz  monastery,  who 
was  the  parish  priest  of  St.  Michael's.  Though  the  monk 
Bernard  was  a  strong  opponent  of  church-reform,  Hus  was  on 
terms  of  friendship  with  him  and  often  dined  at  the  parsonage. 


74  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Hus,  as  was  always  his  custom,  expressed  his  opinions  freely, 
and  many  statements  made  by  him  here  and  at  the  house  of 
another  friend,  "  Venceslas  the  cup-maker,"  were  in  a  dis- 
torted form  brought  forward  as  evidence  against  him  many 
years  later.1  As  Hus  was  then  and  continued  many  years 
afterwards  to  be  on  good  terms  with  his  ecclesiastical  superiors, 
this  circumstance  appears  an  evil  example  of  the  tendency  to 
eavesdropping  and  espionage  of  which  the  Bohemians  are  so 
often  accused  by  their  enemies. 

It  was  due  to  the  great  fame  of  Hus  as  a  preacher  that  he 
obtained  in  1402  the  important  appointment  of  preacher  at 
the  Bethlehem  chapel.  This  foundation  is  so  closely  con- 
nected with  Hus  and  the  Hussite  movement  that  it  deserves 
notice  here.  The  foundation  was  undoubtedly  an  offshoot 
of  Milic's  reform  movement,  and  it  is,  as  Dr.  Tomek  writes, 
somewhat  strange  that  such  a  foundation  should  have  been 
permitted  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  at  a  time  when  the 
Archbishop  of  Prague  was  persecuting  the  followers  of  Milic. 
The  founder  of  Bethlehem  was  John  or  Hanus  of  Millheim,  of 
whom  too  little  is  known.  We  only  read  that  he  was  one  of 
the  favourite  courtiers  of  King  Venceslas  IV.  and  that  he 
was,  judging  by  his  name,  not  a  Bohemian  by  birth.  He 
appears  to  have  been  owner  of  considerable  estates — among 
others,  of  that  of  Pardubice  in  north-eastern  Bohemia,  as  well 
as  of  considerable  house  property  in  Prague.  Through  his 
wife,  Anna  Zajic  of  Hasenburg,  he  was  connected  with  the 
ancient  nobility  of  Bohemia.  The  year  of  his  birth  is  uncer- 
tain, but  we  have  documentary  evidence  to  prove  that  he 
died  before  the  year  1408.  Associated  with  him  in  the  founda- 
tion was  the  tradesman  Kriz,  a  rich  and  patriotic  citizen  of 
Prague,  who  was  very  anxious  to  obtain  for  his  fellow-citizens 
the  privilege  of  hearing  sermons  in  their  native  language.  It 
was  he  who  gave  the  building  ground  on  the  present  Betlemske 
Namesti  (Bethlehem  Square),  and  he  hoped,  as  events  proved 

1  See  Palacky,  Documenta,  passim,  particularly  pp.  174-185. 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  75 

rightly,  that  his  association  with  a  powerful  and  influential 
noble  would  enable  him  to  overcome  the  resistance  which, 
during  the  period  of  reaction  that  followed  the  death  of  Milic, 
an  enterprise  founded  on  the  lines  of  that  church-reformer 
would  necessarily  encounter.  The  document  drawn  up  by 
Millheim  which  established  the  Bethlehem  foundation  (dated 
May  24,  1391)  indeed  breathes  entirely  the  spirit  of  Milic.1 
He  states  that,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  holy  fathers, 
the  word  of  God  should  not  be  fettered,  but  should  be 
preached  with  the  greatest  freedom  and  in  the  manner  most 
useful  to  the  church  and  its  members.  Regret  is  then  ex- 
pressed that  there  was  not  as  yet  at  Prague  a  place  specially 
destined  for  preaching,  and  in  particular  none  where  sermons 
could  be  preached  in  the  national  language.  Bohemian 
preachers  were  therefore  generally  obliged  to  seek  shelter  in 
houses  or  hiding-places.  To  obviate  such  evils  in  future 
Millheim  decreed  that  the  rector  of  the  new  foundation  should 
be  a  secular  priest  whose  duty  it  was  to  be  to  preach  in 
Bohemian  twice  a  day — in  the  morning  and  in  the  afternoon 
— on  all  Sundays  and  feast  days,  except  during  Advent  and 
Lent,  when  he  was  only  expected  to  preach  in  the  morning. 
Relying  on  the  support  of  his  influential  ally,  the  pious  Kriz 
began  building  the  Bethlehem  chapel  even  before  he  had 
received  the  royal  sanction  of  the  foundation.  Near  the 
chapel  Kriz  built,  also  on  the  present  Bethlehem  Square,  a 
modest  dwelling  for  the  priest  who  was  to  officiate  in  the 
chapel.  The  door  of  this  modest  house,  sanctified  to 
Bohemians  by  the  fact  that  it  was  for  a  time  inhabited  by 
Hus,  has  been  preserved,  and  is  now  indicated  by  an  appro- 
priate inscription.  The  Bethlehem  chapel  itself  was  entirely 
demolished  by  the  Emperor  Joseph  II.  of  Austria  in  1786.2 
It   appears   to   have   been   a   somewhat  extensive   building, 

1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii.  pp.  426-427. 
s  Not  by  the  Jesuits  as  has  been  frequently  stated;   they  had  been  expelled 
from  the  Austrian  states  several  years  previously. 


76  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

deserving  rather  the  name  of  a  church  than  that  of  a  chapel 
which  it  always  retained.  It  is  said  to  have  been  roomy 
enough  to  contain  over  a  thousand  people.  Many  ancient 
views  of  the  famed  Bethlehem  chapel — Millheim  had  followed 
Milic  in  giving  a  Biblical  name  to  his  foundation — have  still 
been  preserved.  The  German  historian  Zacharias  Theo- 
baldus,  who  visited  Prague  in  1621,  writes  that  he  had  at  that 
time  already  found  little  in  the  Bethlehem  chapel  that  was  of 
historical  interest.1  He  saw,  however,  a  bench  on  which  Hus 
had  frequently  sat  and  the  pulpit  from  which  he  had  preached. 
The  latter  had  been  greatly  injured  by  the  many  pious 
travellers  who  had  cut  off  and  carried  away  chips  from  it. 

The  Bethlehem  chapel,  specially  instituted  for  the  purpose 
of  preaching  in  the  national  language  from  its  foundation, 
attracted  great  interest;  the  preachers  there  were  renowned 
for  their  eloquence.  The  fame  of  the  chapel,  however,  became 
yet  much  greater  when  Hus  began  to  preach  there.  As  had 
been  the  case  with  Milic,  disciples  now  began  to  gather  round 
Hus  and  formed  a  considerable  part  of  his  congregation.  His 
following  was  not  limited  to  men.  Many  pious  Bohemian 
ladies  soon  began  to  occupy  rooms  near  the  Bethlehem  chapel 
to  be  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  enthusiastic  preacher.  One 
of  the  first  to  do  this  was  Anezka  of  Stitny,  who  has  already 
been  mentioned.  Somewhat  later,  Cunegunda  of  Wartenberg, 
who  shared  the  apartments  of  Anezka,  Catherine  Kaplir  of 
Sulevic,  and  other  noble  Bohemian  ladies  found  dwelling-places 
near  the  Bethlehem  chapel,  where  Queen  Sophia,  the  wife  of 
King  Venceslas,  was  also  a  frequent  visitor.  These  ladies 
devoted  themselves  wholly  to  religious  exercises  and  works 
of  charity,  forming  an  association  similar  to  those  of  the 
Beguines,  though  they  were  not  fettered  by  any  rules  or 
regulations.     The  important  part  played  by  women  in  the 

1  "  Doch  habe  ich  kein  Antiquitet  so  zu  diesem  meinem  proposito  (i.e.,  of 
studying  the  history  of  Hus  and  the  Hussite  wars)  gehoret  finden  konnen." 
(Zacharias  Theobaldus  Hussitenkrieg,  p.  28.) 


THE  YOUTH  OF  Hi's  77 

Hussite  movement  has,   as   I   have  already  remarked,   been 
much  overlooked  by  historians. 

As  so  often  occurs  under  similar  circumstances,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Bethlehem  community  gradually  and  perhaps 
unconsciously  assumed  an  attitude  of  aloofness  and  apartness 
which  could  not  fail  to  cause  displeasure  in  the  narrow  atmo- 
sphere of  a  mediaeval  city.  The  followers  of  Hus  specially 
incurred  the  dislike  of  the  German  inhabitants  of  Prague. 
Some  of  these  men  had  indeed  at  first  welcomed  the  teaching 
of  Waldhauser  and  Milic,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth 
century  racial  discord  became  more  intense  in  Prague.  The 
Bohemians  were  greatly  irritated  by  the  depredations  and 
cruelties  which  the  German  soldiers,  sent  into  the  country  by 
Venceslas's  antagonist,  Rupert  of  the  Palatinate,  committed. 
Hus  shared  the  general  feeling  of  his  countrymen,  and  in  a 
passage  in  one  of  his  sermons  that  has  already  been  quoted 
spoke  strongly  against  the  Germans.  Though  Hus  always 
declared  that  he  preferred  a  good  German  to  a  bad  Bohemian, 
he  also  expressed  himself  strongly  with  regard  to  the  attitude 
of  the  German  members  of  the  university  who  were  suspected 
of  favouring  Rupert  of  the  Palatinate.  '  The  Germans,"  he 
writes,1  "  who  are  in  Bohemia  should  go  to  their  king 
(Venceslas)  and  swear  that  they  will  be  faithful  to  him  and 
to  the  country,  but  this  will  only  come  to  pass  when  a  serpent 
warms  itself  on  the  ice."  2  Another  subject  of  national  dis- 
cord was  the  troublous  state  of  affairs  at  the  university. 
Though  the  foundation  of  German  universities  such  as  that  of 
Vienna  had  considerably  reduced  the  number  of  German 
students,  their  preponderance,  founded  on  the  artificial  system 
of  voting  by  "  nations,"  still  continued.  It  had  indeed 
become  even  more  onerous,  for  since  the  foundation  of  the 
University  of  Cracow  the  Germans  had  secured  a  majority  in 

1  Vyklad  desatera  bozieho  prikazani  (Exposition  oi  the  Ten  Commandments), 
chap,  xxxviii.  p.  ioo,  of  Erben's  edition. 

2  A  proverbial  locution. 


78  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

the  Polish  "  nation  "  at  Prague.  A  very  vast  amount  of 
ecclesiastical  patronage  was  in  the  gift  of  the  university,  and 
the  youthful  Bohemian  students  of  theology,  mostly  penniless 
young  men,  naturally  feared  that  they  would  have  little  hope 
of  obtaining  preferment  from  a  university  which  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  Germans.  The  great  intellectual  advance  of  the 
Bohemian  nation  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century 
rendered  it  yet  more  sensitive  to  the  slight  which  consisted  in 
its  exclusion  from  the  most  important  offices  of  the  church 
and  the  university.  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  this  matter 
also  Hus  was  in  sympathy  with  his  countrymen.  Certain 
concessions  were  indeed  made.  Thus,  after  prolonged  discus- 
sion, an  agreement  was  made  in  1384,  according  to  which,  of  the 
twelve  collegiate  seats  at  the  Carolinum  college,  ten  should 
always  be  conferred  on  Bohemians,  while  the  other  two  should 
be  open  to  them  as  well  as  to  the  members  of  the  three  other 
"  nations."  A  similar  rule  was  also  established  in  the  college 
of  King  Venceslas.1  These  slight  concessions,  which  changed 
little  in  the  general  organisation  of  the  university,  may  have 
deferred,  but  did  not  prevent  the  conflict  that  broke  out  at  the 
time  of  Hus,  and  which  will  shortly  be  mentioned. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  Hus  was  on  good  terms  with  his 
ecclesiastical  superiors  during  the  first  years  of  his  priesthood. 
His  strong  national  feeling  did  not  offend  those  members  of 
the  clergy  who  belonged  to  the  ancient  Bohemian  nobility. 
The  nobles  of  the  country  were,  partly  from  a  feeling  of 
opposition  to  the  German  townsmen,  generally  friendly  to 
|the  Bohemian  people.  It  is  also  an  error  to  state,  as  has  fre- 
Jquently  been  done,  that  the  acquaintance  with  the  works  of 
jWycliffe  suddenly  turned  Hus  from  a  devoted  servant  of  the 
;  Church  of  Rome  into  a  virulent  enemy  of  that  church.  The 
only  undoubted  change  in  the  nature  of  Hus  was  that  which 
occurred  at  the  time  of  his  ordination  as  a  priest.     He  aban- 

1  Tomek,  Deje  University  Prazske  (History  of  the  University  of  Prague), 
p.  112. 


/ 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  79 

doned  at  that  time  the  very  harmless  frivolities  in  which  he 
had  previously  indulged.  Always  a  pious  man,  he  now  be- 
came a  very  fervent  Christian  and  a  very  diligent  student  of 
theology.  Hus's  alienation  from  the  Church  of  Rome  was  a 
gradual  one,  founded  on  personal  experiences  as  well  as  on 
the  study  of  books,  Wycliffe's  among  others.  The  learned 
Dr.  Schwab,  in  his  Johannes  Gerson,  in  which  he  incidentally 
gives  an  interesting  account  of  the  early  studies  of  Hus,  points 
out  that  he  devoted  much  time  to  the  study  of  the  sentences 
of  Peter  Lombard  1  and  of  Gratian's  Decretum.  In  the  latter 
work  Hus  found  many  statements,  such  as  that  the  primate 
had  only  been  founded  by  the  Emperor  Constantine,  and  that 
equality  had  formerly  existed  between  priests  and  bishops, 
which  were  entirely  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  church  in 
his  time.  Of  Wycliffe's  works,  also,  Hus  was  an  enthusiastic 
student.  The  writings  of  the  English  divine  had  from  their 
first  appearance  attracted  great  attention  at  the  University  of 
Prague.  Hus  studied  them  carefully  and  transferred  to  his 
own  writings  many  ideas  contained  in  them,  though,  as  already 
mentioned,  it  is  always  necessary  to  inquire  whether  the  views 
expressed  by  both  writers  are  not  derived  from  a  common 
earlier  source.  It  is  a  proof  of  the  great  interest  in  Wycliffe's 
writings  which  Hus  showed  at  this  period  that  we  find  among 
his  earliest  works  a  Bohemian  translation  of  the  Trialogus  of 
the  English  divine.  \tf 

It  was  also  this  interest  in  the  works  of  Wycliffe  which  was  I 
the  cause,  or  perhaps  the  pretext,  of  the  first  theological  con- 
troversy in  which  Hus  became  involved.  It  was,  however, 
as  yet  only  the  university  and  particularly  its  German 
magisters,  not  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  attacked  him.  A 
German  master  of  theology,  John  Hiibner,  in  1403  brought 
to  the  notice  of  the  chapter  of  Prague — the  archbishopric  was 

1  Dr.  J.  B.  Schwab,  Johannes  Gerson.  That  Hus  had  written  an  extensive 
commentary  on  the  sentences  of  Peter  Lombard — a  fact  that  of  course 
confirms  Dr.  Schwab's  statement — was  not  known  at  the  time  his  book 
appeared. 


80  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

then  vacant — twenty-one  "  articles  "  derived  from  the  works 
of  Wycliffe  which  he  declared  to  be  heretical.  It  should  be 
remarked  that  Hiibner's  "  articles  "  x  contained  many  state- 
ments that  were  not  derived  from  Wycliffe,  as  will  be  obvious 
to  all  who  have  even  a  slight  acquaintance  with  the  writings 
of  the  English  divine.  None  the  less  these  articles,  as  well  as 
twenty-four  others  condemned  by  the  synod  of  London,  were 
by  John  Kbel  and  Venceslas  of  Bechin,  canons  of  the  chapter 
of  Prague,  brought  to  the  notice  of  Walter  Harasser,  a  German 
of  the  Bavarian  "  nation  "  who  had  just  succeeded  Hus  as  rector 
of  the  university.  A  general  meeting  of  the  members  of  the 
university,  presided  over  by  the  rector,  Walter  Harasser,  took 
place  on  May  28,  1403,  in  the  great  hall  of  the  Carolinum 
college.  The  debate  was  a  stormy  one.  Some  of  the  masters 
who  were  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Wycliffe  rightly 
declared  that  the  articles  attributed  to  him  statements  that 
he  had  never  made.  Master  Nicholas  of  Litomysl  addressed 
Hiibner  the  informer  in  these  words:  "  Thou  hast  falsely  and 
unjustly  drawn  from  these  books  (i.e.  Wycliffe's)  statements 
that  are  not  contained  in  them."  Hus  exclaimed  that  the 
falsifiers  should  be  executed,  as  were  those  who  falsified 
victuals,  alluding  to  the  recent  occurrence  that  two  men  had 
suffered  the  death-penalty  for  that  offence.  Stephen  Palec, 
then  an  adherent  of  Hus,  but  one  of  those  whom  intimidation 
and  even  meaner  reasons  afterwards  brought  over  to  the 
Roman  party,  threw  one  of  Wycliffe's  books  on  the  table  and 
said  to  the  assembled  masters:  "  Let  who  will  stand  up  and 
speak  against  any  word  contained  in  this  book !  I  will  defend 
it!  "  Several  other  masters  spoke  in  the  same  sense.  The 
majority  of  the  assembly,  however,  was  of  a  contrary  opinion. 
A  statement  was  drawn  up  and  passed  by  majority  declaring 
that  "  no  one  should  teach,  repeat,  or  affirm  these  articles  either 
privately  or  publicly."     To  prevent  the  quarrel  from  becoming 

1  They  are  printed   by   Palacky,   Documenta,   pp.   451-455.     One  of  the 
statements  attributed  to  Wycliffe  runs  thus:    "  Deus  debet  obedire  diabolo." 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  81 

yet  more  envenomed,  no  decree  declaring  the  articles  to  be 
heretical  was  passed.  Some  years  afterwards,  at  a  meeting  of 
the  members  of  the  Bohemian  nation,  who  were  almost  all 
favourable  to  the  cause  of  church -reform,  the  former  judg- 
ment was  attenuated.  On  the  proposal  of  Hus  it  was  de- 
clared that  "  no  master  or  scholar  of  the  Bohemian  nation 
should  defend  the  articles  in  any  false,  erroneous,  or  heretical 
sense."  This  restriction  may  be  said  to  have  rendered  the 
whole  prohibition  illusory. 

These  academical  discussions  appear  at  this  time  to  have 
attracted  little  attention  beyond  the  precincts  of  the  univer- 
sity. Public  opinion  in  Prague  became  calmer  after  the 
election  of  a  new  archbishop.  The  choice  fell  on  Zbynek 
Zajic  of  Hasenburg,  a  member  of  one  of  the  oldest  families  of 
the  Bohemian  nobility.  Though  long  nominally  a  priest,  he 
had  hitherto  devoted  himself  exclusively  to  politics  and  to 
military  matters.  A  very  distinguished  soldier,  he  did  not 
endeavour  to  conceal  his  distaste — it  was  really  perhaps  con- 
tempt— for  abstruse  theological  controversy.  Zajic  was  on 
the  whole  a  well-meaning  man,  who  did  not  claim  to  be  a 
scholar,  but  was  far  less  illiterate  than  was  stated  by  his 
opponents  when  he  was  very  reluctantly  dragged  into  the 
turmoil  of  theological  controversy.  Zajic,  a  man  of  common  i 
sense  if  not  of  learning,  perceived  that  the  real  danger  to  the 
Bohemian  church  lay  in  the  terrible  immorality  and  dishonesty 
of  the  clergy.  It  also  could  not  escape  his  notice  that  the 
accusation  of  holding  heretical  opinions  was  often  levelled 
against  virtuous  and  zealous  priests  by  their  less  worthy  col- 
leagues. The  exemplary  life  of  Hus  and  the  eloquence  of  which 
he  had  given  proof  in  his  sermons  at  the  Bethlehem  chapel 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  new  archbishop.  Disregarding 
the  attacks  of  which  Hus  had  been  the  subject,  Zbynek  showed 
great  favour  to  the  pious  and  eloquent  preacher.  As  Hus 
afterwards  recalled  to  the  archbishop's  memory,1  he  ordered 

1  In  a  letter  addressed  by  Hus  to  the  archbishop  in  July  1408,  he  reminded 

F 


82  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

him,  "  whenever  he  noticed  any  irregularity  with  regard  to  the 
government  of  the  church,  to  bring  such  irregularity  to  the 
archbishop's  knowledge  either  in  person  or  in  case  of  absence 
by  means  of  a  letter."  Honestly  striving  to  improve  the 
moral  conduct  of  the  clergy  of  his  archbishopric,  Zbynek  de- 
termined on  instituting  frequent  meetings  or  synods  in  which 
all  matters  of  discipline  could  be  discussed.  He  appointed 
Hus  preacher  to  the  synod.  Some  of  his  synodal  sermons 
have  been  preserved,  and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  in  them  he 
attacked  the  morals  and  general  behaviour  of  the  Bohemian 
priesthood  in  a  very  strong  though  doubtlessly  justifiable 
manner.  These  attacks  did  not  at  this  period  deprive  Hus  of 
the  favour  of  the  archbishop,  as  will  be  shown  presently  when 
referring  to  the  important  mission  that  was  entrusted  to  him. 
At  court,  also,  Hus  was  now  in  favour.  Though  we  can  hardly 
believe  that  King  Venceslas  felt  much  interest  in  matters  of 
theology,  he  undoubtedly,  probably  through  the  influence  of 
his  pious  queen,  Sophia,  treated  the  eloquent  preacher  with 
kindness.  In  later  days,  also,  he  extended  his  protection  to 
Hus  even  when  by  so  doing  he  incurred  the  enmity  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  and  of  his  treacherous  younger  brother  Sigis- 
mund.  Queen  Sophia  had  from  the  first  shown  favour  to 
the  young  priest,  John  of  Husinec,  and  was  often  present  at 
his  sermons  in  the  Bethlehem  chapel.  Through  her  influence 
Hus  became  court  chaplain,  and  the  queen  also  appointed 
him  her  confessor. 

In  1405  Archbishop  Zbynek  entrusted  Hus — together 
with  two  other  priests — with  a  mission  that  had  considerable 
importance.  At  Wilsnack,  a  small  town  of  Slavic  origin, 
situated  in  the  present  Prussian  province  of  Brandenburg, 
strange  miracles  were  stated  to  have  occurred.  In  a  chapel 
there  three  bleeding  holy  wafers  had  been  found,  and  it  was 

him  that  "  in  principio  vestri  regiminis  mihi  pro  regula  Pat.  Vra.  instituerat 
ut  quotienscunque  aliquem  defectum  erga  regimen  conspicerem,  mox  per- 
sonaliter,  aut  in  absentia  per  literam  defectum  hujusmodi  nuntiarem." 
(Palacky,  Documenta,  p.  3.) 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  83 

affirmed  that  those  who  invoked  these  remnants  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  obtained  miraculous  results.     A  knight 
named  Henry,  who  was  to  fight  a  duel  with  one  Frederick, 
vowed  before  doing   so  that  he  would  dedicate  his  armour 
to   the  Holy  Blood   of   Wilsnack:     he   killed  his   adversary. 
One  Peter,  a  robber  and  murderer,  while  confined  in  prison  in 
fetters,  also  made  a  vow  to  the  Holy  Blood  of  Wilsnack.     The 
result  was  that  his  fetters  were  miraculously  broken  and  that 
he  escaped.     These  and  other  similar  tales  were  circulated 
widely  all  over  Europe,  and  countless  pilgrims  from  all  coun- 
tries— among  them  many  Bohemians — flocked   to   Wilsnack. 
Hus  and  his  colleagues  questioned  very  diligently  at  Prague 
some  of  those  who  had  visited  the  new  place  of  pilgrimage. 
The  evidence  they  collected  is  very  curious  as  bearing  witness 
not  only  to  the  superstition  and  credulity  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
but  also  to  the  unscrupulous  dishonesty  of  the  clergy  of  the 
period.     Thus  the  evidence  stated  that  a  citizen  of  Prague, 
Peter  of  Ach,  one  of  whose  hands  was  maimed,  had  undertaken 
a  pilgrimage  to  Wilsnack  and  dedicated  a  silver  hand  as  an 
offering  to  the  Holy  Blood.     Peter,  however,  failed  to  find 
relief.     He  remained  three  days  at  Wilsnack,  wishing  to  hear 
what  the  priests  would  say  of  this.     He  then  saw  a  priest  who 
showed  the  silver  hand  from  the  pulpit,  saying:    "  Listen, 
children,  to  this  miracle.     The  hand  of  our  neighbour  from 
Prague  has  been  healed  by  the  Holy  Blood,  and  he  has  offered 
this  silver  hand  as  a  thanksgiving."     Peter  then  rose,  showed 
his  maimed  hand,  and  exclaimed:   "  Priest,  thou  liest;  here  is 
my  hand  maimed  as  it  always  was!  "     The  result  of  the  in- 
vestigation, in  the  course  of  which  many  similar  frauds  were 
exposed,  was  that  an  archiepiscopal  decree  enjoined  on  all 
preachers  in  Bohemia  the  duty  of  informing  the  laymen  in 
their  sermons  that  pilgrimages  to  Wilsnack  were  prohibited. 
This  prohibition  was  to  be  repeated  on  one  Sunday  of  every 
month. 

The  deplorable  result  of  this  investigation,  in  which  Hus 


84  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

took  a  prominent  part,  and  the  equally  repulsive  facts  that 
came  to  his  knowledge  in  consequence  of  the  supervision  of 
the  clergy  with  which  the  archbishop  had  entrusted  him, 
rendered  Hus  yet  more  bitter  when  writing  and  speaking  of  the 
Bohemian  priests.  He  thus  drew  on  himself  the  undying 
hatred  of  many  of  the  priests  of  Prague,  particularly  of  those 
whose  life  was  not  irreproachable.  It  was,  indeed,  mainly  on 
the  testimony  of  such  men  that  Hus  was  afterwards  con- 
demned at  Constance. 

Meanwhile  the  university  and  town  of  Prague  had,  partly 
in  consequence  of  the  revelations  of  Wilsnack,  again  become 
a  hotbed  of  theological  strife.  The  fact  that  the  bleeding 
wafers  had  been  misused  in  an  obviously  fraudulent  manner 
led  to  a  truly  scholastic  controversy  on  the  substance  of  the 
blood  of  Christ.  Hus  took  part  in  this  controversy  by  means 
of  two  of  his  earliest  Latin  works,  entitled  respectively,  De 
Corpore  Christi  and  De  Sanguine  Christi.  The  last-named 
treatise  refers  directly  to  the  investigation  of  the  so-called 
miracles  of  Wilsnack,  and  was  written  by  order  of  the  arch- 
bishop. The  older  manuscripts  mention  that  it  was  approved 
by  the  archbishop  and  the  University  of  Prague,  while  the 
later  ones,  written  after  Hus  had  been  cast  off  by  the  Roman 
Church,  state  that  the  treatise  had  been  rejected  by  the  arch- 
bishop and  university.1 

As  has  been  frequently  pointed  out,  the  question  of  the 
sacrament  was  in  Bohemia  very  closely  connected  with  the 
pretensions  of  the  priests  whose  privilege  it  was  to  administer 
it.  Hus's  attitude  with  regard  to  the  pseudo-miracles  of  Wils- 
nack no  doubt  irritated  yet  further  the  clergy  of  Prague, 
already  deeply  offended  by  his  outspokenness,  and  jealous  of 
his  success  as  a  preacher.  The  contemporary  chroniclers  all 
attribute  the  troubles  of  Hus  to  the  imprudence  he  showed  in 

1  Flajshans  Liter  ami  Cinnost  Mistra  J  ana  Husi  (Literary  Activity  of 
Master  John  Hus),  pp.  67-70.  Both  these  treatises  are  printed  in  the  Nurem- 
berg edition  of  the  Latin  works  of  Hus. 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  85 

attacking    the    powerful    priesthood.     One    of    these    writers 
states:1   "  It  was  commonly  said  that  as  long  as  he   (Hus) 
preached  against  the  lords,  knights,  and  squires,  the  citizens 
and  the  artisans  all  praised  him  and  felt  kindly  towards  him. 
But  when  he  attacked  the  clergy,  the  pope,  and  others  of  the 
ecclesiastical  estate,  then  many  deserted  him."     The  Bohemian 
chroniclers  write  with  a  great  deal  of  prejudice,   and  their 
statements  must  be  received  with  caution.     Yet  this  passage 
probably  reflects  the  popular  feeling  at  Prague  at  the  time 
when  the  relations  between  Hus  and  the  Roman  Church  began 
to  become  strained.    It  is,  at  any  rate,  certain  that  the  enemies 
of  Hus  laid  great  stress  on  the  losses  that  might  befall  the 
Bohemian  priests  in  consequence  of  his  teaching.     Such  argu- 
ments would  also,  it  was  hoped,  detach  from  the  cause  of  Hus 
Archbishop  Zbynek,  who  continued  to  show  great  distaste  for 
theological  controversies.     In  1408,  shortly  after  the  second 
discussion  of  the  works  of  Wycliffe  at  the  university  which,  as 
already  mentioned,  had  ended  by  a  compromise  suggested  by 
Hus,  the  clergy  of  Prague  brought  forward  new  accusations 
against  him  based  rather  on  questions  of  conduct  than  of 
dogma.     In  a  document 2  which  they  forwarded  to  the  arch- 
bishop, they,  after  briefly  referring  to  the  previous  discussion 
on  the  works  of  Wycliffe,  declared  that  Hus  had  preached 
odious    and   scandalous    sermons    which    had    lacerated    the 
minds  of  the  pious,  extinguished  charity,  and  rendered  the 
clergy  odious  to  the  people.     It  was  further  stated  that  Hus 
had  in  the  Bethlehem  chapel  declared  before  a  large  congrega- 
tion consisting  both  of  men  and  women,  "  contrary  to  the 
regulations  of  the  holy  church  and  the  teaching  of  the  fathers," 
that  all  priests  who  claimed  money  from  their  parishioners  as 
retribution  for  ecclesiastical  functions,  confession,  communion, 
baptism,  and  others,  were  heretics.     It  was  further  stated  that 

1  Start  Letopisove  ctssti  (Ancient  Bohemian  Chronicles),  edited  by  Palacky, 
vol.  iii.  p.  7. 

*  This  important  document  is  printed — together  with  Hus's  reply — in 
Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  154-163. 


86  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Hus,  while  officiating  at  the  funeral  of  Canon  Peter  Vserub, 
who  had  been  a  great  pluralist,  had  declared  that  he  would 
not  accept  as  gift  the  whole  world  on  the  condition  of  dying 
possessed  of  so  many  benefices.  Hus  was  lastly  accused  of 
having  in  his  sermons  generally  strongly  attacked  the  priests 
and  lowered  them  in  the  estimation  of  the  laymen.  Hus 
replied  in  a  lengthy  and  spirited  letter  to  the  archbishop, 
which  is,  unfortunately,  not  devoid  of  the  scholastic  hair- 
splitting then  fashionable  at  the  universities.  Yet  there  is 
no  doubt  that  Hus  was  entirely  in  the  right,  particularly  when 
he  laid  stress  on  the  baseness  of  extorting  money  from  the 
poor  as  a  condition  of  administering  the  sacraments  to  them. 
As  Professor  Tomek  has  truly  written,  such  conduct  proves  to 
what  a  low  level  the  clergy  of  Prague  had  sunk  at  this  period. 
The  learned  professor  has  also  pointed  out  that  the  conduct  of 
the  priests  blamed  by  Hus  was  in  direct  contravention  of  the 
article  65  of  the  statute  of  Ernest,  Archbishop  of  Prague, 
who  had  some  time  previously  endeavoured  to  reform  the 
Bohemian  Church.  Nevertheless,  Archbishop  Zbynek  hence- 
forth showed  less  favour  to  Hus,  and  soon  after  the  complaint 
of  the  priests  he  deprived  him  of  his  office  of  preacher  to  the 
synod.  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  conduct  of  Hus  at  this 
period  was  not  conciliatory.  Ever  zealous  for  the  reform  of 
the  Bohemian  Church — this,  not  a  change  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  church,  he  considered  the  purpose  of  his  life — Hus  ad- 
dressed to  Archbishop  Zbynek  a  letter  which,  as  Dr.  Lechler, 
a  Protestant  divine,  has  truly  written,  reaches  the  extreme 
limit  of  that  which  is  permissible  to  a  priest  when  writing  to 
his  ecclesiastical  superior.  In  this  letter  Hus  interceded  for 
the  priest  Nicholas  of  Velenovic,  surnamed  Abraham.  Abra- 
ham had  preached  at  Prague  without  permission,  and  had 
been  called  to  account  by  Canon  John  Kbel,  one  of  the  most 
strenuous  opponents  of  church-reform.  When  questioned, 
Abraham  did  not  deny  the  offence,  but  declared  that  he  be- 
lieved that  not  only  priests,  but  laymen  also,  had  the  right  to 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  87 

preach.  Thereupon  Kbel  called  him  a  heretic,  and  caused 
him  to  be  imprisoned,  and  afterwards  exiled.  This  occurrence 
deeply  affected  Hus,  particularly  as  Abraham  was  a  man  of 
blameless  character.  It  has  already  been  noted  that — 
though  there  were  many  exceptions — it  was  generally  among 
the  worthy,  zealous,  and  pious  priests  that  the  friends  of 
church-reform  were  found.  In  interceding  for  Abraham,  Hus 
vividly  contrasted  his  life  with  that  of  other  priests  of  Prague.1 
He  ended  his  letter  by  admonishing  the  archbishop  "  to  love 
the  good,  watch  over  those  who  are  evil,  not  let  the  ostenta- 
tious and  avaricious  flatter  him,  favour  the  humble  and  friends 
of  poverty,  oblige  the  indolent  to  work  and  not  hinder  those 
who  labour  steadfastly  at  the  harvest  of  the  Lord."  Rela- 
tions between  the  archbishop  and  Hus  became  more  and  more 
strained,  and  a  letter  written  at  the  end  of  the  year  1408,2  in 
which  Hus  defended  his  conduct  and  expressed  himself  in 
favour  of  neutrality  between  the  rival  pontiffs,  closed  the 
correspondence. 

The  end  of  the  year  1408  is  one  of  the  principal  landmarks 
in  the  life  of  Hus.  The  "  academic  "  period,  as  Dr.  Flajshans 
has  aptly  named  it,  now  ends.  During  this  period  Hus  was 
mainly  occupied  with  university  studies  and  lectures  and, 
still  in  agreement  with  his  ecclesiastical  superiors,  enjoyed 
a  comparative  degree  of  quiet  such  as  was  never  again  to  be 
his  lot. 

Before,  however,  dealing  with  the  period  of  strife  that  now 
awaited  Hus  and  during  which  the  events  of  his  life  become 

1  The  language  of  Hus  is  very  forcible.  He  writes:  "Qualiter  hoc  est 
quod  incestuosi  et  varie  crirninosi  absque  rigo  (sic)  correctionis  tamquam 
tauri  indomiti  et  equi  emmissarii  collis  extentis  incedunt  libere,  sacerdotes 
autem  humiles,  spinas  peccati  evellentes  officium  vestri  implentes  regiminis 
ex  bono  affectu,  non  sequentes  avaritiam,  sed  gratis  pro  Deo  se  offerentes  ad 
evangelizationis  laborem  tamquam  haeretici  mancipantur  carceribus  et 
exilium  propter  evangelizationem  ipsius  evangelii  patiuntur."  Palacky, 
Documenta,  pp.  1-2.  The  MS.  copied  and  published  by  Palacky  is  somewhat 
defective.  It  is  in  this  letter  that  Hus — as  mentioned  above — refers  to  the 
mandate  given  him  by  the  archbishop  to  report  on  the  conduct  of  the  clergy 
of  Prague. 

*  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  5-7. 


88  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

involved  in  the  whirlpool  of  the  politics  of  his  time,  the  early 
writings  of  the  Bohemian  church-reformer  should  be  briefly 
noticed.  They  are  more  numerous  than  was  formerly  believed. 
Earlier  writers  generally  surmised  that  all,  or  almost  all,  his 
works  had  been  written  during  the  last  six  troublous  years  of 
his  life  (1409-1415).  It  is  true  that  far  fewer  writings  of  Hus 
were  then  known  than  is  the  case  at  present.  Yet  it  is  never- 
theless a  physical  impossibility  that  Hus  should,  during  those 
troubled  years  of  exile  and  imprisonment,  have  written  all 
the  numerous  Bohemian  and  Latin  works  with  which  we  are 
now  acquainted.  The  bibliography  of  the  works  of  Hus  is 
still  incomplete,  though  the  masterly  work  of  Dr.  Flajshans, 
entitled  Liter  ami  Cinnost  Mistra  J  ana  Husi  (The  Literary 
Activity  of  Master  John  Hus),  has  thrown  a  vast  amount  of 
light  on  a  formerly  very  obscure  subject.  Even  now  almost 
unknown  manuscripts  of  Hus  that  were  secreted  in  little- 
known  libraries  continue  to  be  re-discovered  and  published. 

Very  early  Bohemian  writings  of  Hus,  perhaps  his  earliest, 
are  some  sermons  that  have  been  recently  discovered.  Of 
these  some  had  been  partially  known  previously,  as  Hus  had, 
as  was  his  custom,  incorporated  them,  though  in  a  modified 
form,  in  other  works,  particularly  in  his  Postilla.  The  dis- 
covery is  due  to  that  indefatigable  scholar,  Mr.  Adolphus 
Patera,  formerly  librarian  of  the  Bohemian  museum  at  Prague. 
Mr.  Patera  found  these  manuscripts  in  the  library  of  the 
Cistercian  monastery  at  Wilhering  in  Upper  Austria,  and 
published  them  in  the  Journal  of  the  Bohemian  Society  of 
Sciences.  Hus,  or  rather  the  copier,  here  still  uses  the  ancient 
system  of  writing  Bohemian  which,  as  will  be  mentioned 
later,  was  so  greatly  ameliorated  and  altered  by  Hus  himself- 
He  here  also  still  intersperses  his  sentences  with  Latin  words, 
a  proceeding  of  which  Hus  strongly  disapproved  when  he 
began  to  devote  his  attention  to  the  language  of  his  country. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  here  already  find  Hus's  holy  hatred  of 
vice  and  immorality,  and  he  here  already  propounds  the  theory 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  89 

that  sin  is  no  more  permissible  to  a  priest  than  to  a  layman,  \ 
and  indeed  more  blamable — a  theory  that  appeared  para- 
doxical to  most  of  Hus's  contemporaries,  particularly  among 
the  priesthood.  Thus  when  preaching  on  Zacchaeus  (St. 
Luke,  chap,  xix.)  he  says:  "  Those  householders  are  manifest 
sinners  who  allow  immorality  or  dice-playing  in  their  houses. 
I  say  the  same  of  dancing,  by  which  they  mock  God  on  Sun- 
days. As  St.  Bernard  says,  those  who,  particularly  if  they 
are  priests,  allow  in  their  houses  dancing  or  diceing  or  im- 
morality, commit  a  mortal  sin,  and  the  priests  more  so  than 
the  laymen,  for  what  is  venial  for  a  layman  is  mortal  for  a 
priest."  *  A  very  early  Bohemian  work  of^  Hus  also  is  his  [ 
translation  of  the  Trialogus  of  Wycliffe.  It  was  probably 
made  between  the  years  1403  and  1407.  If,  as  has  been  con- 
jectured on  the  strength  of  statements  made  at  the  trial  of 
Jerome  of  Prague  at  Constance,  Jerome  assisted  Hus  in  this 
translation,  this  would  be  the  only  known  instance  of  colla- 
boration between  him  and  Jerome.  The  translation  has  been 
long,  and  probably  irretrievably  lost,  and  its  existence  is 
known  to  us  only  through  the  testimony  of  numerous  con- 
temporary writers.  Numerous  manuscripts  of  it  appear  to 
have  existed,  but  were  destroyed  during  the  period  of 
Romanist  reaction  that  followed  the  battle  of  the  White 
Mountain.  The  translation  was  dedicated  to  the  Margrave 
Jodocus  of  Moravia,  a  cousin  of  King  Venceslas.  It  is  prob- 
able that  the  frequent  quotations  from  this  work  of  Wycliffe 
which  we  find  in  the  writings  of  the  later  Bohemian  reformer, 
Peter  Chelcicky,  were  derived  from  this  translation. 

Among  Hus's  Latin  works  that  belong  to  this  early  period 
is  one  that,  though  formerly  almost  unknown,  is  the  largest   . 
and  may  also  be  considered  the  greatest  of  his  Latin  works. 
Though   Hus   here   also   conforms   to   the   scholastic   system 
which  required  incessant  quotations  and  "  authorities,"   he 

1  Vestnik  Kralovske  ceske  spolecnosti  nauk  (Journal  of  the  Rl.  Bohemian 
Society  of  Sciences)  for  1890,  p.  360. 


9o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

appears  here  as  both  a  profounder  and  a  more  original  scholar 
than  in  books  such  as  the  treatise,  De  Ecclesia.     I  refer  to 
Hus's  work,  Super  IV.  Sententiarum,"  which  has  quite  recently 
been   published   by   Dr.    Flajshans.1     The   discovery   of   this 
work  has  already  changed,  and  will  in  future  probably  even 
more  change,  the  appreciation  of  Hus  as  a  scholar.     The  book 
is  a  vast  commentary  on  the  then  world-famed  work  of  Peter 
Lombard   entitled   Sententiarum   Libri  quatuor.      This   book, 
the  work  of  Peter,  born  at  Lumello  in  Lombardy — whence 
his  name  of  Lombardus — towards  the  end  of  the  eleventh 
century,  was  for  many  generations  the  recognised  text-book  of 
theology.     Peter's  work  consists  in  a  vast  collection  of  the 
opinions  of  the  fathers  of  the  church  on  all  matters  of  faith, 
the  writer  generally  refraining  from  stating  his  own  views. 
Though  Peter's  book  was,  of  course,  in  strictest  accordance 
with  the  views  of  the  Church  of  Rome  as  far  as  they  had  been 
formulated  in  his  time,  yet  it  did  not  always  escape  suspicion. 
The  work,  which  is  based  on  the  fluctuating  foundation  of 
patristic   tradition,    and    places    side    by    side    contradictory 
opinions,  bears  traces  of  a  freedom  that  was  afterwards  lost.2 
The  scholastic  writers,  indeed,  contributed  very  little  to  the 
development  of  dogma.     Laying  stress  rather  on  those  truths 
that  had  been  longest  accepted,  they  endeavoured  to  steer 
clear  of  dangerously  contentious  matters.     Thus  the  sentences 
of  Peter  contain  no  references  to  the  papacy.     In  spite  of  these 
circumstances  the  Libri  Sententiarum  was  a  generally  recog- 
nised authority,  and  innumerable  commentaries  on  the  work 
soon  began  to  appear.     Most  young  theologians  at  the  begin- 
ning of  their  career  lectured  on  Peter  Lombard  and  then 
published  their  lectures  in  the  form  of  a  commentary  on  his 
work.     Thus  Hus's  contemporary  and  great  adversary,  Peter 
of  Ailly,  also  wrote  as  his  first  work  a  commentary  on  the 

1  Super  IV.  Sententiarum  Heraurgegeben  von   Wenzel  Flajshans  und  Dr. 
Marie  Kominkova,  1906. 

2  Dr.  Harnack,  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte ,  vol.  iii.  p.  330. 


THE  YOUTH  OF  HUS  91 

Sententiarum    Libri    quatuor.1       The     advancement     of     his 
academic  career  was,  as  Dr.  Flajshans  conjectures,  an  induce- 
ment to  Hus  to  undertake  this  great  work,  which  he  began 
in  1407.     Peter  Lombard's  book,  founded  largely  on  St.  Augus- 
tine, had,  however,  in  itself  great  attraction  for  Hus.     Hus's 
book,  Super  IV.  Sentcntiarum,  proves  that  the  writer  was  at 
that  time  already  a  man  of  vast  erudition.     Hus  followed  the 
argumentation  and  order  of  ideas  of  Lombard,  whose  work 
was  the  subject  of  his  commentary.     He  borrowed  largely 
from  the  earlier  commentators,  Bonaventura  and  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas.     He  also  quotes  extensively  St.  Augustine  and  the 
Trialogus  of  Wycliffe.     In  some  cases,  when  it  was  endea- 
voured to  establish  a  dependence  of  Hus  on  Wycliffe,  more      ^ 
careful  research  has  proved  that  both  writers  had— as  was  ( 
then  frequently  the  case — borrowed  extensively  and  without 
acknowledgment  from  the  works  of  Peter  Lombard.     Of  the 
many  other  writers  used  by  Hus  we  may  mention  St.  Anselm,    ^ 
Duns  Scotus,  Occam,  and  Bradwardine.2     It  is  interesting  to 
note  as  a  proof  of  Hus's  extensive  learning  that  when  he— in 
Book  II.  distinction  8— treats  of  the  truly  scholastic  question, 
whether  the  angels  have  bodies  naturally   {naturaliter)   joined 
to  them,  he  quotes  to  support  his  views  the  opinions,  firstly,  of 
St.  Augustine,  secondly,  of  Plato— in  the  Timaeus— thirdly,  of 
Apulejus!     It  must  be  noticed  that  in  this  extensive  work 
Hus's  teaching  is  entirely  in  accordance  with   that   of    the 
Roman  Church  of  his  time.     In  one  of  his  latest  works,  written 
but  a  few  months  before  his  death,  Hus  lays  stress  on  this 
fact,  and  in  answer  to  the  accusation  levelled  against  him  of 
having  denied  the  validity  of  the  sacrament  when  administered 
by  an  unworthy  priest,  he  quoted  his  early  lectures  on  Peter 
Lombard.3    This  is  entirely  in  accordance  with  the  truth. 

1  Tschackert,  Peter  von  A  illy,  p.  n. 

*  Hus  calls  him  "  Bragwardin,"  p.  293  of  Dr.  Flajslians's  edition  of  Super 
IV.  Sententiarum. 

3  See   p.   xvii.   of   Dr.   Flajshans's   (German)   introduction   to    Super    IV. 

Sententiarum. 


92  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Hus  in  his  Super  IV.  Sententiarum  has  expressed  on  this  diffi- 
cult question  views  that  are  identical  with  those  of  Rome.1 
Even  an  unworthy  priest  can  validly  administer  the  sacra- 
ment. It  is  sufficient  that  he  who  administers  it  should  be  a 
priest,  should  speak  the  words  of  consecration,  and  should 
have  the  intention  of  administering  the  sacrament,  that  is,  of 
doing  what  the  church  does. 

It  is  obviously  beyond  the  purpose  of  this  book  to  give  a 
detailed  account  of  this  great  work  of  Hus's,  which  can  be 
described  as  a  commentary  on  the  dogmatics  as  expounded  in 
the  then  universally  recognised  text-book  of  Peter  Lombard. 
The  book,  which  has  only  been  recently  brought  to  public 
knowledge,  is  far  too  little  known,  and  well  deserves  to  attract 
attention,  particularly  among  theologians.  Of  the  other 
Latin  works  of  Hus  that  belong  to  this  period  two,  the  treatises 
De  Corpore  Christi  and  De  Sanguine  Christi,  have  already  been 
mentioned. 

1  "  Distinccio  ista  13a.  .  .  .  continet  quod  sacerdotes  aliqui,  licet  sint 
pravi,  consecrant  vere,  quia  non  in  merito  consecrantis  sed  in  verbo  efficitur 
creatoris."  (Super  IV.  Sententiarum,  Lib.  IV.  Distinccio  XIII.  pp.  582-588, 
of  Dr.  Flajshans's  edition.) 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  TO  THE 
CHURCH  OF  ROME 

It  has  already  been  noted  that  the  end  of  the  year  1408  is  a 
very  important  landmark  in  the  life  of  Hus.  He  henceforth 
appears  an  open  enemy  of  Rome,  though  he  continued  to  the 
end  of  his  life  to  consider  himself  a  true  and  faithful  member 
of  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  history  of  Hus  at  this  period 
widens  out  and  becomes  more  closely  connected  with  the  vast 
stage  of  European  politics  on  which  Hus  himself  for  a  brief 
moment  appears  as  a  prominent  figure.  The  political  situa- 
tion of  Europe  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century  was 
entirely,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  influenced  by  the  great 
Western  schism.  The  cardinals  assembled  in  Rome  in  1378 
had  elected  as  pope,  Bartolomeo  Prignano,  Archbishop  of  Bari, 
who  assumed  the  name  of  Urban  VI.  Though  the  Roman 
Church  has  in  later  days  declared  that  Urban  VI.  and  his 
successors  up  to  Gregory  XII.  were  legitimate  popes,  Urban's 
election  was  impugned  almost  immediately,  as  having  been 
obtained  by  violence  and  by  intimidation  on  the  part  of  the 
populace  of  Rome.  A  few  months  after  the  election  of  Urban 
a  certain  number  of — mostly  French — cardinals  elected  as 
pope,  Robert,  Cardinal  of  Geneva,  who  took  the  name  of 
Clement  VII.  The  following  period,  during  which  two,  and 
for  some  time  three,  popes  claimed  to  be  the  successors  of  St. 
Peter,  is  one  of  the  darkest  in  the  history  of  the  church.  The 
struggle,  however,  here  requires  notice  only  as  far  as  it  con- 
cerned Bohemia  and  the  fate  of  Hus  in  particular.  Verbal 
warfare  between  the  contending  popes  was  waged  in  the 
coarsely  vituperative  manner  customary  among  mediaeval 
theologians.     The    formidable    power    of    excommunication 

93 


94  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

which  the  popes  possessed  was  misused  for  the  purpose  of 
crushing  political  enemies.  To  equip  armed  forces  against 
their  adversaries,  the  contending  popes  raised  money  by 
taxing  the  faithful,  selling  absolutions  and  benefices,  and 
other  simoniacal  means.  Each  pope  being  only  able  to 
claim  a  certain  number  of  countries  as  belonging  to  his 
"  obedience,"  as  it  was  called,  the  papal  agents  became  ever 
more  extortionate.  It  is  only  by  taking  these  facts  into 
account  that  we  can  explain  the  spirit  of  intense  hatred  and 
scorn  with  which  contemporary,  even  moderate  writers,  some 
of  whom  had  been  papal  officials,  speak  of  the  Roman  Church. 
It  was  natural  that  at  such  a  period  pious  and  unworldly  men, 
when  contrasting  the  events  of  their  times  with  their  own 
ideals,  should  feel  an  intense  longing  for  the  true  Church  of 
Christ  as  they  conceived  it. 

When  Pope  Urban  VI.  died  in  1389,  the  cardinals  of  his 
obedience,  fearing  that  the  termination  of  the  schism  might 
prove  disadvantageous  to  them,  immediately  chose  as  Urban's 
successor  the  Neapolitan  cardinal,  Piero  Tomacelli,  who  took 
the  title  of  Boniface  IX.  Similarly,  after  the  death  of  Clement 
VII.  in  1394,  the  Spaniard,  Peter  de  Luna,  who  took  the 
name  of  Benedict  XIII.,  was  elected  pope  by  the  cardinals  of 
Clement's  obedience.  The  cardinals  of  both  obediences,  with 
characteristic  insincerity  and  falseness,  continued  meanwhile 
to  maintain  that  their  greatest  wish  was  to  terminate  the 
schism.  This,  however,  for  the  time  appeared  impossible,  nor 
did  the  deaths  of  Boniface  IX.  in  1404,  and  of  his  successor 
Innocent  VII.  in  1406,  change  the  situation.  Pope  Gregory 
XII.  was  immediately  chosen  as  the  successor  of  Innocent,  and 
though  he  conformed  to  the  custom  of  his  predecessors  by 
stating  that  he  wished  to  re-establish  the  unity  of  the  church, 
it  was  thoroughly  understood  that,  to  each  of  the  two  popes  and 
to  his  adherents,  unity  of  the  church  meant  the  recognition  of 
the  pope  of  their  obedience  and  the  division  of  the  benefices  of 
the  church  among  his  principal  partisans. 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  95 

In  the  year  1408  the  principal  dignitaries  of  the  Roman 
Church,  with  the  weighty  moral  support  of  the  universities  of 
Paris  and  Bologna,  made  a  determined  attempt  to  terminate 
the  schism.  After  difficult  and  prolonged  negotiations,  car- 
dinals of  both  obediences,  together  with  many  other  digni- 
taries, met  at  Pisa  on  March  25,  1409.  The  debates  were 
stormy  and  at  times  threatened  to  be  resultless,  but  finally 
the  council  deprived  both  popes,  Benedict  and  Gregory,  of 
the  papal  rank  and  all  other  dignities,  declaring  them  to  be 
heretics  and  schismatics.  The  faithful  were  released  from 
their  oath  of  fidelity  to  both  popes,  and  all  decrees  and  nomi- 
nations that  they  might  publish  were  declared  void.  It 
remained  to  elect  a  new  pope.  Mainly  through  the  influence 
of  the  cardinal-legate  of  Bologna,  Baldassare  Cossa,  who  was 
the  leading  spirit  of  the  council  of  Pisa,  Peter  Philargi, 
Cardinal  of  Milan,  was  chosen  as  pope.  He  assumed  the  name 
of  Alexander  V.  His  reign  was  short.  Through  the  influence 
of  Cossa,  his  principal  councillor,  he  was  induced,  though 
already  a  man  of  over  seventy  years,  to  travel  in  the  middle 
of  winter  across  the  Apennines  from  Pisa  to  Bologna.  Though 
he  became  ill  in  consequence  of  the  hardships  of  his  journey, 
his  life  was  not  at  first  despaired  of;  but  he  died  at  Bologna 
on  May  11,  1410,  poisoned,  as  appears  almost  certain,  by 
Cardinal  Cossa,  aided  by  Cossa's  doctor,  Master  Daniele  di 
Santa  Sofia.1  Baldassare  Cossa  now  openly  assumed  the 
authority  which  he  had  practically  already  wielded.  On  May  t 
17,  Cossa  was  by  the  cardinals  then  present  at  Bologna 
elected  pope,  "  unfortunately  for  himself  and  many  others," 
as  Niem  writes.  Though  his  enemies  from  the  first  declared 
that  his  election  was  due  to  intimidation,  Cossa  was  a  few 
days  later  crowned  pope  under  the  name  of  John  XXIII.  in 
the  cathedral  church  of  St.  Petronius. 

1  Of  the  many  crimes  of  which  Baldassare  Cossa  was  rightly  or  wrongly 
accused,  this  appears  one  of  the  most  authenticated.  See  Giovanni  Gozzadini, 
Nanne  Gozzadini  e  Baldassare  Cossa,  pp.  367  and  368,  where  a  list  of  contem- 
porary authorities  on  this  subject  is  given.  Mr.  Gozzadini's  book  contains 
much  authenticated  information  on  the  early  life  of  Pope  John  XXIII. 


96  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

While  the  popes  and  cardinals  previously  mentioned  enter 
but  little  into  the  life  of  Hus,  this  is  not  the  case  as  regards 
Baldassare  Cossa.  We  meet  with  Pope  John  XXIII.  in  some 
of  the  most  important  moments  of  the  life  of  Hus.  It  was 
this  pope  who  summoned  Hus  to  Rome.  It  was  the  attempt 
of  Cossa  to  raise  funds  in  Bohemia  for  the  continuation  of 
his  war  against  Naples  that  caused  the  troubles  in  Prague 
which  forced  Hus  to  exile  himself.  It  was  Pope  John  XXIII. 
who  appears  as  Hus's  principal  antagonist  during  the  earlier 
part  of  his  stay  at  Constance.  It  was  Baldassare  Cossa 
through  whose  influence  Hus  was  imprisoned  shortly  after 
his  arrival  at  Constance — though  the  pope  repudiated  the 
responsibility  for  this  act  whenever  he  found  it  convenient  to 
do  so.  It  is  therefore  interesting  to  glance  briefly  at  the  early 
life  of  this  pontiff.  Baldassare  Cossa  was  born  at  Naples  about 
the  year  1360  and  took  orders  at  a  very  early  age.  He,  how- 
ever, early  in  life,  felt  the  vocation  of  a  soldier,  and  took  part 
in  the  struggle  for  the  Neapolitan  throne  between  Ladislas  of 
Hungary  and  Louis  of  Anjou.  Military  discipline,  however, 
soon  became  irksome  to  Cossa,  who  is  stated  to  have  behaved 
rather  as  a  brigand  than  as  a  soldier.  Bishop  Creighton, 
writing  with  his  usual  moderation,  states  that  his  life  exceeded 
the  bounds  of  military  licence."  1  It  has  often  been  stated 2 
that  he  for  a  time  became  a  pirate,  but  this  tale  probably  only 
indicates  that  he  took  part  in  naval  warfare  during  the  struggle 
between  the  competitors  for  the  Neapolitan  crown.  Though 
no  one  could  be  less  worthy  of  the  papal  tiara  than  Cossa,  he 
was  undoubtedly,  particularly  in  his  younger  days,  a  man  of 
exceptional  talent  and  reckless  determination,  endowed  with 
an  absolute  contempt  for  the  distinction  of  good  and  evil, 

1  History  of  Papacy,  vol.  i.  p.  268. 

2  "  Dum  autem  simplex  clericus  ac  in  adolescentia  consti tutus  existeret 
cum  quibusdam  fratribus  suis  piraticam  in  mari  Neopolitano,  ut  fertur 
exercuit."  (Theodoric  de  Niem,  De  Vita  Papae  Joannis  XXIII.)  Except 
the  members  of  the  council  of  Constance,  no  one  writes  of  Baldassare  Cossa 
with  greater  animosity  than  this  grey -grown  servitor  of  the  popes. 


•  yb&m  ■  ft//'//?/////  '/. 


//■?////<////■///// 


///ft/'///         /   '■// 


I  ■/■//.,/// ///// //.I'  '  /'//ft///, 


,A;  ,'//,,>,//. 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  97 

jenscits  des  Gutcn  und  Bosen,  to  use  Nietsche's  now  almost 
proverbial  expression.  If  he  played  a  somewhat  pitiable  part 
at  Constance,  we  may  assume  that  the  excesses  of  his  earlier 
days  had  impaired  his  formerly  brilliant  mental  power.  Find- 
ing that  a  military  career  was  not  at  that  moment  likely  to 
lead  to  rapid  advancement,  Cossa  took  to  study  and  visited 
the  famed  University  of  Bologna.  He  here  obtained  the 
degree  of  laureate  both  of  civil  and  of  canon  law  "  in  conse- 
quence of  his  talents,"  though  he  was  said  to  have  been  more 
assiduous  in  debauchery  than  in  study.  The  accusations 
afterwards  brought  forward  against  Cossa  at  Constance  are 
terrible.  Even  if  we  distrust  some  of  Niem's  hideously- 
grotesque  tales,  and  believe  that  some  of  the  evidence  produced 
at  Constance  may  have  been  spurious,  Cossa's  record  remains 
very  black.  Almost  all  contemporary  writers  assert  that  he 
was  tainted  with  unnatural  vice.  Cossa  soon  ingratiated 
himself  with  his  countryman,  Pope  Boniface  IX.,  who  ap- 
pointed him  archdeacon  of  Bologna,  an  important  office,  the 
holder  of  which  acted  as  rector  of  the  university.  To  be 
nearer  to  the  pontiff  Cossa  proceeded  to  Rome,  and  by  pay- 
ing large  sums  to  the  pope,  whose  avarice  was  insatiable,  he 
became  Bishop  of  Ischia,  and  cardinal  in  1402.  He  then 
obtained  other  ecclesiastical  dignities,  and  was  finally  sent  as 
papal  legate  to  Bologna,  Ferrara  Ravenna,  and  Rimini.  These 
cities,  which,  during  the  then  prevailing  anarchy,  had  thrown  off 
the  papal  rule,  were  subdued  by  Cossa.  Not  less  greedy  for 
money  than  his  patron  Pope  Boniface,  the  new  legate  suc- 
ceeded in  extorting  vast  sums  from  these  cities,  particularly 
from  Bologna,  where  even  the  churches  and  monasteries  were 
not  secure  from  his  greed.  Cossa  for  a  time  became  absolute 
ruler  of  Bologna,  hardly  caring  to  keep  up  the  pretence  that 
he  was  acting  as  a  papal  legate.  His  reign  of  terror,  which 
obtained  for  him  the  name  of  "  diavolo  cardinale,"  l  scarcely 
suffered  any  interruption,  when  a  conflict  broke  out  between 

1  Mr.  Gozzadini,  quoting  from  the  archives  of  the  Gozzadini  family. 

G 


98  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

him  and  Pope  Gregory  XII.,  the  second  successor  of  his 
former  patron.  Pope  Gregory  had  appointed  his  nephew  to 
the  wealthy  bishopric  of  Bologna,  the  revenues  of  which 
Cardinal  Cossa  refused  to  renounce.  Deadly  enmity  sprang 
up  between  the  cardinal  and  the  pope,  who  excommunicated 
him,  stating  "  that  notorious  facts  proved  that  the  disciple 
(alumnus)  of  perdition,  Baldassare  Cossa,  formerly  cardinal 
deacon  of  St.  Eustachius,  formerly  apostolic  legate,  had  with 
other  sons  of  iniquity  revolted  against  the  pope  and  the 
mother-church  of  God,  that  he  had  treated  with  contempt 
the  worship  of  God,  neglected  the  ceremonies  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  seized  the  sword  of  Satan  and  that  of  tyrannical 
power."  *  Cossa  retaliated  without  delay.  Carrying  out  a 
plan  he  had  perhaps  previously  conceived,  he  granted  his  pro- 
tection to  the  council  assembled  at  Pisa,  which,  in  the  disturbed 
state  in  which  Italy  then  was,  could  hardly  have  met  had  it  not 
been  for  the  strong  military  force  that  was  under  Cossa's 
command.  Through  his  influence  Pope  Alexander  was  elected, 
and,  as  already  mentioned,  Cossa  shortly  became  his  successor. 
As  Pope  John  XXIII.  he  resumed  his  former  Italian  policy, 
endeavouring  in  a  manner  not  dissimilar  from  that  afterwards 
employed  by  Caesar  Borgia  to  carve  out  a  kingdom  for  himself 
in  that  land.  His  most  dangerous  opponent  was  King  Ladislas 
of  Naples.  It  was  by  attempting  to  raise  money  for  the  pur- 
pose of  a  crusade  against  Naples  that  John  XXIII.  became 
the  cause  of  disturbances  in  the  distant  city  of  Prague.  When, 
on  the  repeated  invitation  of  the  Emperor  Sigismund,  Cossa 
reluctantly  proceeded  to  Constance,  his  former  good  fortune 
seems  to  have  forsaken  him.  A  thorough  Italian,  he  appears 
out  of  his  element  in  northern  lands. 

After  noticing  briefly  the  general  state  of  European  politics, 
dominated  as  it  was  entirely  by  the  schism,  reference  must 
again  be  made  to  Hus.  In  Bohemia,  as  elsewhere,  the  schism 
was  the  almost  exclusive  object  of  public  interest.     It  has 

1  Abridged  from  Raynaldus  Annates  Ecclesiasticae,  vol.  viii.  p.  220. 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  99 

already  been  noted  that  the  rival  pontiffs  always  expressed 
their  desire  that  the  schism  should  be  brought  to  an  end. 
Pope  Gregory  XII.,  who  had  by  the  cardinals  of  the  Roman 
obedience  been  elected  as  successor  to  Boniface  IX.  and  to 
Innocent  VII.,  soon  after  his  accession  informed  the  University 
of  Prague  that  he  was  ready  to  resign  his  dignity,  should 
his  opponent  Benedict  do  likewise.  There  is,  however,  no 
evidence  that  either  pope  would  have  accepted  any  solution 
except  the  abdication  of  his  rival.  When  the  cardinals  as- 
sembled at  Pisa  to  choose  a  new  pope,  they  addressed  a  petition 
to  Venceslas  and  all  other  Christian  princes,  begging  them  to 
maintain  neutrality,  that  is  to  say,  to  recognise  henceforth 
neither  of  the  contending  pontiffs,  Gregory  and  Benedict. 
Venceslas  was  inclined  to  view  such  a  proposal  favourably. 
The  French  court,  which  was  on  traditional  terms  of  friend- 
ship with  the  house  of  Luxemburg,  had  decreed  that,  up  to  the 
conclusion  of  the  schism,  the  popes  should  not  be  allowed  to 
exercise  the  papal  rights  in  France.  They  would  thus  become 
unable  to  confer  benefices,  and  it  was  hoped  that  they  would 
in  consequence  lose  many  of  their  supporters.  This  measure 
rightly  appeared  to  Venceslas  as  a  first  step  towards  a  pacifi- 
cation. He  had,  however,  as  was  always  the  case,  great 
difficulty  in  coming  to  a  decision.  In  1408  he  had  already 
entered  into  negotiations  with  the  cardinals  who  had  deserted 
Gregory  and  Benedict.  He  first  employed  for  this  purpose 
Magister  Mauritius  de  Praga,1  who  was,  as  far  as  we  can 
conjecture  from  the  very  contradictory  reports,  a  partisan  of 
Pope  Gregory.  At  any  rate  he  did  nothing  to  further  the 
negotiations  that  had  been  entrusted  to  him.  In  October  of 
the  same  year  Venceslas  sent  to  Italy  as  his  envoys  two 
members  of  the  University  of  Prague,  Magisters  Stanislas  of 
Znoymo  and  Stephen  Palec,  who  were  known  as  members  of 
the  party  favourable  to  church-reform.  The  envoys  were  to 
proceed  to  Pisa,  but  were  on  their  journey  arrested  at  Bologna 

1  By  Hus  and  his  friends  generally  known  as  "  Rvacka." 


ioo  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

by  order  of  Cardinal  Cossa.  As  Cossa  was  the  guiding  spirit 
of  the  council  and  the  envoys  were  representatives  of  a 
sovereign  supposed  to  be  favourable  to  its  plan  of  pacification, 
this  step  of  Cardinal  Cossa  has  caused  much  controversy  and 
remains  unexplained.  Perhaps  the  fact  that  the  envoys 
carried  with  them  a  large  sum  of  money  and  had  numerous 
horses  in  their  convoy — they  were  deprived  of  both  coins  and 
horses — affords  some  clue  to  this  occurrence.  It  is  also  very 
probable  that  some  message  had  been  sent  to  Bologna  from 
Prague,  stating  that  the  envoys  were  "  Wyclifhtes."  This 
would  give  Cardinal  Cossa  a  welcome  pretext  for  his  depreda- 
tion. The  envoys  were  very  roughly  treated  by  the  mer- 
cenaries of  Cossa,  and  Stephen  Palec  is  said  never  to  have 
recovered  from  the  fright  he  felt  at  this  time.  Hus  did  not 
hesitate  to  affirm  that  this  was  the  reason  why  the  opinions 
of  Palec  changed  suddenly  after  his  mission  to  Italy.  The 
University  of  Prague  determined  to  take  steps  to  insure  the 
safety  of  its  imprisoned  members.  On  the  suggestion  of  Hus, 
Henning  of  Baltenhagen,  then  rector,  addressed,  on  December 
8,  1408,  a  complaint  to  the  cardinals  assembled  at  Pisa,1 
stating  that  those  venerable  men,  Stanislas,  of  Znoymo,  pro- 
fessor of  theology,  and  Stephen  Palec,  bachelor  of  theology, 
"  well  -  beloved  sons  of  the  university,"  had  been  deprived 
of  their  possessions  and  imprisoned.  After  praising  "  the 
vigorous  wisdom,  praiseworthy  conversation,  and  solid  doc- 
trine "  of  these  men,  the  letter  begged  that  they  might  be 
released.  Cossa  was  on  very  good  terms  with  the  council,  and 
the  prisoners  were  almost  immediately  liberated,  though  their 
goods  were  not  restored  to  them. 

Very  shortly  after  Stanislas  and  Stephen  had  started  for 
Italy,  and  probably  before  their  arrestation  had  become  known 
in  Bohemia,  Venceslas  decided  to  send  another  envoy  to  the 
council.  He  had  previously,  in  a  letter  forwarded  to  the 
cardinals  at  Pisa  on  November  24,  1408,2  declared  his  willing- 

1  Palacky,  Documenta,  p.  345.  *  Ibid.  p.  343. 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  101 

ness  to  send  an  envoy  to  Pisa  on  condition  that  such  an  envoy 
should  be  considered  as  a  representative  not  only  of  the  King 
of  Bohemia  but  also  of  the  King  of  the  Romans.  A  few  years, 
previously  some  of  the  German  electors  had  deposed  Ven- 
ceslas  and  elected  in  his  stead  as  king  Rupert,  Count  Palatine. 
It  was  the  invasion  of  Bohemia  by  German  troops  acting  in  the 
cause  of  Rupert  that  was  the  occasion  of  the  famed  eloquent 
sermon  of  Hus,  which  has  already  been  mentioned.  Venceslas 
had  never  recognised  his  deposition,  and  the  demand  which 
he  addressed  to  the  cardinals  therefore  appears  justified.  It 
appears  to  have  been  accepted,  but  after  considerable  delay, 
for  it  was  only  a  year  later  that  the  king's  new  representative, 
Master  John  "  Kardinal,"  *  of  Reinstein,  started  for  Italy. 
While  Stanislas  and  Stephen  appear  to  have  had  only  a  semi- 
private  mission,  Magister  Reinstein  acted  as  the  king's  official 
representative.  Reinstein  was  a  firm  adherent  of  the  party 
of  church-reform  and  a  warm  personal  friend  of  Hus  up  to  the 
end  of  his  life.  Venceslas's  choice  of  an  envoy  is  therefore 
significative. 

The  attempt  of  the  cardinals  assembled  at  Pisa  to  induce 
the  principal  European  powers  to  accept  the  system  of 
neutrality,  that  is  to  say,  to  renounce  the  obedience  of  both 
Gregory  and  Benedict,  proved  on  the  whole  successful. 
France,  where  the  University  of  Paris  used  its  great  influence 
in  favour  of  a  measure  which  would,  as  was  believed,  termi- 
nate the  schism,  declared  in  favour  of  neutrality.  In  Germany 
also  John  of  Nassau,  the  powerful  Archbishop  of  Maintz,  used 
his  vast  influence  in  favour  of  neutrality,  though  Rupert  of 
the  Palatinate,  Venceslas's  rival  as  King  of  the  Romans,  a 
firm  supporter  of  Pope  Gregory,  strongly  opposed  it. 
Bohemia  would,  according  to  the  wishes  of  Venceslas,  also 
have  immediately  adhered  to  the  system  of  neutrality.  The 
fact  alone  that  Rupert  of  the  Palatinate  whom  Gregory  had 
recognised  as  King  of  the  Romans  opposed  that  system, 
1  This  strange  designation  of  Master  John  of  Reinstein  was  a  nickname. 


102  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

rendered  it  the  obvious  policy  of  Venceslas  to  adopt  it.  Yet 
he  found  difficulties  in  his  path.  Archbishop  Zbynek  was 
then  and  continued  to  a  somewhat  later  period  an  adherent 
of  Gregory.  At  the  university  opinion  was  divided.  The 
German  magisters,  many  of  whom  secretly  sympathised  with 
Rupert  in  his  conflict  with  their  king,  were  loath  to  renounce 
the  obedience  of  Gregory.  The  Bohemian  members  of  the 
university,  on  the  other  hand,  were  unanimous  in  their  desire 
to  comply  with  the  wishes  of  King  Venceslas.  They  were  by 
no  means  blind  to  the  many  failings  of  the  king,  but  they 
believed  him  to  be  on  the  whole  a  well-meaning  sovereign  not 
unfavourable  to  the  cause  of  church-reform.  It  should  indeed 
be  noted  that  the  very  exaggerated  unfavourable  accounts  of 
the  life  of  Wenceslas,  which  have  been  repeated  by  countless 
historians,  had  their  origin  rather  in  the  favour  he  for  a  time 
accorded  to  Hus  and  his  disciples  than  in  the  very  real  failings 
of  Venceslas,  which  he  shared  with  many  other  princes  of  the 
fifteenth  century.  The  Bohemian  members  of  the  university 
were  also  largely  dependent  on  the  king's  favour  for  obtaining 
the  changes  at  the  university  favourable  to  their  nation,  which 
they  desired.  Another  motive  may  also  have  influenced 
them.  Many  of  the  Bohemian  masters  may  have  read  the 
works  of  Wycliffe  and  other  opponents  of  the  extreme  preten- 
sions of  the  papal  see.  Such  men  would  be  less  opposed  to 
the  deposition  of  popes  than  others  who  upheld  the  unlimited 
authority  of  papacy;  for  we  meet  already  with  such  up- 
holders at  this  period.1  The  differences  of  opinion  caused  by 
the  question  of  neutrality,  as  was  inevitable,  accentuated  and 
envenomed  the  national  discord  which  already  prevailed  at 
the  university,  where  a  Bohemian  majority  was  oppressed  and 
deprived  of  its  rights  by  a  somewhat  overbearing  German 
minority.     At  a  meeting  of  the  members  of  the  university 

1  Dr.  Harnack  writes  [Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  398-399  n.) : 
"  The  book  de  planctu  ecclesiae  of  the  Franciscan  monk  Alvarus  Pelagius  .  .  . 
contains  passages  which  prove  that  even  in  the  nineteenth  century  the 
glorification  of  papacy  could  not  be  carried  to  a  greater  extreme." 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  103 

held  late  in  the  year  1408,  the  rector  Baltenhagen  and  all 
the  German  members  energetically  maintained  that  Gregory 
should  continue  to  be  recognised  as  pope.  The  Bohemians — 
Hus  acting  as  spokesman — expressed  themselves  strongly  in 
favour  of  neutrality  up  to  the  time  when  a  new  pope  should 
have  been  elected.  The  meeting  broke  up  without  a  vote 
having  been  taken,  probably  because  Baltenhagen  was  afraid 
of  offending  the  king.  Hus  always  maintained  that  it  was 
from  this  moment  that  he  lost  the  favour  of  the  archbishop. 
It  is  certain  that  shortly  after  this  meeting  a  decree  signed  by 
Archbishop  Zbynek  declared  that  Hus,  as  a  disobedient  son  of 
the  church,  was  forbidden  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  func- 
tions. Hus  replied  in  an  eloquent  letter — to  which  reference 
was  made  in  the  last  chapter — and  the  correspondence  then 
ceased. 

King  Venceslas,  who  had  for  some  time  been  residing  in 
Silesia,  left  that  country  about  the  end  of  the  year  1408,  and 
returning  to  Bohemia,  proceeded  to  Kutna  Hora  (Kutten- 
berg),  where  he  and  his  court  remained  for  a  considerable 
time.  Venceslas  here  awaited  the  visit  of  a  French  embassy, 
the  purpose  of  which,  as  was  known,  was  to  persuade  the  king 
to  follow  the  example  of  France  by  renouncing  the  obedience 
of  Gregory  and  Benedict.  The  opinion  of  the  University  of 
Prague  at  this  period  was  of  great  importance  in  all  theo- 
logical discussions.  It  was  customary  to  consult  it  in  such 
cases,  as  had  been  done  in  Paris  and  Bologna.  Venceslas 
therefore  summoned  to  Kutna  Hora  some  of  the  most  promi- 
nent members  of  the  university.  Among  them  were  the 
rector  Henning  of  Baltenhagen  and  several  other  Germans,  as 
well  as  four  Bohemian  masters,  the  most  prominent  of  whom 
were  Hus,  and  Jerome  who  had  just  returned  to  Bohemia 
from  prolonged  travels.  The  king  first  discussed  matters 
with  the  rector,  who  adroitly  avoided  entirely  the  question  of 
the  schism,  but  complained  bitterly  of  the  "  Wycliffite " 
agitation,  which,  he  said,  endangered  the  peace  of  the  city  of 


104  BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION 

Prague,  as  well  as  the  fame  of  Bohemia  as  a  country  exempt 
from  all  heresies.  He  thus  referred  to  a  matter  which  deeply 
touched  the  king,  as  indeed  all  Bohemians.  It  is  difficult  at 
the  present  day  to  realise  what  a  sense  of  opprobrium  the 
word  "  heretic  "  conveyed  even  to  men  who  openly  by  deed 
and  word  opposed  the  Church  of  Rome.  Bohemia  had  always 
boasted  that  it  was  untainted  by  heresy.  Hus  in  the  moment 
of  death  declared  that  he  had  never  expressed  heretical  views. 
As  late  as  at  the  council  of  Basel  the  Hussite  envoys  protested 
more  energetically  against  the  statement  that  they  were 
heretics  than  against  any  other  accusation.  The  anger  of 
Venceslas,  who  was  undoubtedly  misled  by  the  cunning 
German,  is  therefore  natural.  The  king  also  may  have  feared 
that  the  popular  excitement  might  cause  riots  in  Prague. 
Venceslas  graciously  dismissed  Henning  of  Baltenhagen  and 
then  addressed  Hus  and  Jerome  in  very  violent  language.  He 
accused  them  of  fomenting  disorders  in  the  land  and  threatened 
them  with  death  at  the  stake. 

Other  councils,  however,  soon  prevailed  with  King  Ven- 
ceslas. His  courtiers  were  almost  all  favourable  to  the  party 
of  church-reform,  and  they  frequently  assisted  at  Hus's 
sermons  in  the  Bethlehem  chapel.  They  were  far  too  true 
courtiers  to  interfere  at  a  moment  when  the  king  was  carried 
away  by  fury,  but  they  gradually  guided  his  thoughts  back 
to  the  bias  they  had  formerly  had.  They  obtained  powerful 
aid  from  the  members  of  the  French  embassy,  which  arrived 
at  Kutna  Hora  in  January,  1409.  The  embassy  was  very 
numerous,  and  as  was  then  customary,  particularly  when  eccle- 
siastical matters  were  to  be  discussed,  it  included  theologians 
— members  of  the  famed  University  of  Paris.  These  men 
employed  all  their  eloquence  in  endeavouring  to  persuade 
Venceslas  to  renounce  the  allegiance  of  Pope  Gregory,  and  it 
is  very  probable  that,  when  the  opposition  of  the  German 
members  of  the  University  of  Prague  was  mentioned,  the 
French  envoys  may  have  pointed  out  that  the  Paris  University 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  105 

granted  no  such  great  privileges  to  aliens.1  The  queen  also 
spoke  strongly  in  favour  of  the  party  of  Hus.  Finally,  Nicholas 
of  Lobkowitz,  a  favourite  courtier  of  the  king  and  one  who, 
as  manager  of  the  royal  mines  at  Kutna  Hora,  had  daily  access 
to  his  sovereign,  prevailed  on  him  to  sign  the  famous  decree 
of  Kutna  Hora  (January  18,  1409).  In  this  decree,  addressed 
to  the  rector  of  the  University  of  Prague,  the  king,  after  the 
usual  formal  introductory  remarks,  proceeds  to  state  that 
whereas  the  Teutonic  nation,  possessing  no  rights  of  citizenship 
in  Bohemia,  claims,  as  is  truthfully  reported,  three  votes  in  all 
matters  concerning  the  University  of  Prague,  while  the 
Bohemian  nation,  the  lawful  heirs  of  this  kingdom,  possesses 
and  enjoys  but  one,  (therefore)  the  king,  considering  it  most 
unjust  and  unbeseeming  that  foreigners  and  aliens  should 
largely  enjoy  the  advantages  that  belong  rightly  to  the  resi- 
dents, who  consider  themselves  oppressed  by  this  loss  and 
disadvantage,  decrees  that  the  university  shall  henceforth, 
without  all  resistance,  allow  the  Bohemian  nation  to  have  in 
all  assemblies,  judgments,  examinations,  elections,  and  other 
transactions  three  votes  in  the  same  manner  as  the  French 
nation  has  them  in  Paris,  and  in  accordance  with  the  regula- 
tions of  Lombardy  and  Italy.  The  decree  ends  by  stating  that 
the  rector,  should  he  not  act  according  to  these  instructions, 
would  incur  the  king's  gravest  displeasure.2 

This  famous  decree,  which  entirely  altered  the  constitution 
of  the  university,  was  naturally  received  with  great  enthu- 
siasm by  the  national  party.  The  principal  leader  of  that 
party  was  at  this  moment  seriously  ill.  Hus,  whose  nature, 
in  spite  of  his  indomitable  physical  courage,  was  a  very  sensi- 
tive one,  felt  deeply  the  insulting  speech  of  the  king,  for  whom 
he,  as  a  loyal  Bohemian,  felt  affection  and  respect.     On  his 

1  Venceslas's  decree  changing  the  constitution  of  the  university — which 
will  be  mentioned  presently — alludes  to  the  regulations  of  the  University 
of  Paris. 

J  Abridged  from  the  Latin  original,  printed  by  Palacky  (Documenta, 
PP-  347-348). 


106  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

return  to  Prague  he  was  seized  by  one  of  those  violent  attacks 
of  illness  that  were  not  infrequent  during  his  troubled  and 
comparatively  short  life.  It  is  stated  that  the  good  news 
reached  Master  John  on  his  sick-bed  late  on  the  night  of 
January  19.  His  friend  Nicholas  of  Lobkowitz  had  sent  a 
messenger  to  him  with  a  copy  of  the  decree  of  Kutna  Hora. 
Hus,  Dr.  Flajshans  writes,  eagerly  seized  with  his  hands  that 
still  trembled  from  fever  this  magna  charta  of  the  liberty  of 
the  Bohemian  nation  in  the  university.  Almost  immediately 
afterwards  Hus  was  visited  by  two  friends,  who  found  him 
still  in  a  state  of  joyful  excitement.  "  Would  it  be  just,"  he 
asked  them,  "  if  we  had  three  votes  ?  "  Standing  near  the  bed 
of  Hus  they  both  answered  as  with  one  voice,  "  Would  that 
God  did  but  grant  it !  We  shall  never  attain  to  such  a  power." 
Hus  answered:  "  Here  is  a  copy  of  the  king's  letter  to  the 
university.  Read!  "  Hus's  visitors,  ancient  masters  of  the 
Bohemian  nation  who  had  struggled  for  many  years  for  the 
rights  of  their  country,  were  overwhelmed  with  surprise  and 
joy.  Hus,  pointing  to  his  emaciated  body,  exhorted  his 
comrades  to  fortitude.  "  I  am,"  he  said,  "  nearly  dying;  if 
then  I  die,  defend,  I  beg  you,  the  rights  and  the  freedom  of 
our  nation."  1 

After  the  decisive  step,  the  publication  of  the  decree  of 
Kutna  Hora,  had  been  taken,  events  moved  with  great  rapidity. 
Only  four  days  later  a  new  decree  of  King  Venceslas 2  stated 
that  the  cardinals  (i.e.,  those  who  had  renounced  the  obediences 
of  Gregory  and  Benedict),  his  dearest  friends,  men  who  were 
zealous  for  the  unity  of  the  church,  had  earnestly  begged  him 
to  refuse  obedience  to  the  two  contending  pontiffs,  pointing 
out  that  thus  only  could  peace  among  the  Christian  people 
and  the  amity  of  the  church  be  secured.  Venceslas  then 
threatened  with  severe  penalties  all  who  should  obey  any 
orders   of    Pope   Gregory — Pope    Benedict    had    never   been 

1  Flajshans,  Mistr  Jan  Hus,  pp.  194-195. 
2  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  348-349. 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  107 

recognised  by  any  one  in  Bohemia — or  his  party,  or  favour 
them  in  any  way. 

On  January  26,  the  royal  decree  was  read  to  the  assembled 
members  of  the  university.  The  Germans  openly  expressed 
their  displeasure,  and  at  a  meeting  which  took  place  a  few 
days  later  all  the  German  members  of  the  university  pledged 
themselves,  "  under  the  fourfold  penalty  of  perjury,  excom- 
munication, deprivation  of  honours,  and  a  fine  of  threescore 
hundred  groschen,"  to  leave  the  university  and  never  again 
pursue  their  studies  there,  rather  than  admit  that  the 
Bohemians  should  have  three  votes  at  the  deliberations  of 
the  university  and  the  other  nations  only  one.  Hus,  though 
he  has  often  been  falsely  accused  of  wishing  to  expel  the 
German  students  from  Prague,  strongly  blamed  this  decision 
and  advised  them  to  "  annul  their  foolish  and  illicit  vow, 
which  the  devil  had  inspired."  '  Before  leaving  Prague,  how- 
ever, the  German  magisters  determined  to  address  a  remon- 
strance to  Venceslas.  This  short  letter,  which  cannot  be 
said  to  have  been  couched  in  a  very  respectful  tone,  was  de- 
livered to  the  king  on  February  6.  It  stated  that  under  an 
influence  or  influences  known  to  God  alone  2  the  king  had  sent 
to  the  university,  his  daughter,  a  letter  which  seriously  decreed 
that  the  Bohemian  nation  should  in  future  have  three  votes  at 
the  university  and  the  other  nations  only  one.  The  German 
magisters  then  proceeded  to  point  out  the  evil  results  which 
they  said  this  decree  would  certainly  have. 

The  king,  a  few  days  later,  sent  a  lengthy  reply,3  which 
very  clearly  states  his  case  and  deserves  a  somewhat  detailed 

1  "  Si  quis  vestrum  juravit  ut  exiret  de  Bohemia  nunquam  reversurus  hie 
illicite  juravit;  rescindat  juramentum  stultum  illicitum,  a  dyabolo  et  a  suis 
satellitibus  inductum."  (Super  IV.  Sententiarum,  vol.  vi.  d.  i.  p.  503  of  Dr. 
Flajshans's  edition).  In  his  introduction  to  the  work  Super  IV.  Senten- 
tiarum, Dr.  Flajshans  has  very  skilfully  proved  that  this  lecture  on  Peter 
Lombard  was  delivered  at  the  time  when  the  German  students  were  preparing 
to  leave  Prague. 

j  2  "  Ex  cujus  vel  quorum  inductione  Deus  novit."     Palacky,  Documenta, 
P-  351- 

3  Ibid.  pp.  355-363. 


108  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

notice.  Venceslas  began  by  stating  that  his  royal  prerogative 
permitted  him  to  make  whatever  changes  he  thought  fit  at  the 
university,  and  then  pointed  out  that  he  had  the  right  to 
consider  the  three  nations  which  had  joined  into  one  German 
nation  as  a  single  unity.  The  letter  then,  with  the  abundance 
of  biblical  quotations  customary  at  that  period,  blamed  the 
disobedience  of  those  who  refused  to  obey  the  king,  the  ruler 
of  Bohemia.  It  was  further  stated  that  the  inhabitants  of 
the  kingdom  of  Bohemia,  the  true  Bohemians  (regnicolae  regni 
Bohemiae,  veri  Bohemi),  were  entitled  to  receive  such  privi- 
leges as  the  king  thought  fit  to  bestow  on  them,  and  that  he 
had  rightly  given  them  such  privileges  with  regard  to  judg- 
ments, offices,  elections,  and  other  concerns  of  the  university. 
The  foreign  nations — the  letter  continued  to  say — or  rather 
the  Teutonic  nation,  should  humbly  obey  the  decree  of  the 
king,  which  conferred  three  votes  on  the  Bohemian  nation, 
mindful  of  the  words :  "Friend,  I  do  thee  no  wrong  .  .  .  take 
that  thine  is  and  go  thy  way.  ...  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to 
do  what  I  will  with  mine  own  ?  Is  thine  eye  evil  because  I  am 
good?"1  The  letter  then  affirms,  again  bringing  forward 
scriptural  quotations  to  support  the  affirmation,  that  the 
Bohemian  nation  must  be  the  ruler  (rectrix)  of  the  other 
nations  at  the  university,  and  that  the  Teutonic  nation  there- 
fore, by  claiming  three  votes,  claims  supremacy  over  the 
Bohemian  one — a  claim  that  is  contrary  to  the  king's  wishes 
and  undutiful  to  God.  The  Teutonic  nation — the  letter  con- 
tinues— would  never  admit  that  at  Vienna  or  Heidelberg  the 
Bohemians  should  hold  superior  rank  and  rule  over  the  in- 
habitants. It  is  written:  As  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to 
you,  do  ye  also  to  them  likewise.2  If,  therefore,  the  Teutons 
wish  that  the  Bohemians  in  Germany  should  not  oppose  their 
supremacy,  let  them  in  Bohemia  act  similarly  towards  the 
Bohemians.     Both  canon  and  civil  law  teach   that  the   in- 

1  Matthew  xx.   13-15;   only  the  passages  given  above  are  quoted  in  the 
letter.  »  Luke  vi.  *  1 . 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  109 

habitants  of  a  kingdom  should  hold  supremacy  over  the 
foreigners  who  visit  their  country.  The  letter  then  contains 
a  detailed  refutation  of  the  German  statement  that  the 
regulations  favourable  to  them  at  the  university  were  of  long 
standing.  Denying  this,  the  letter  declares  that  Charles  IV., 
according  to  his  charter  of  foundation,  had  wished  it  mainly 
to  benefit  his  Bohemian  subjects.  If  the  Bohemians  were  at 
first  inferior  to  the  Germans  in  learning,  and  were  indeed  as 
slaves,  they  now  have,  with  God's  help,  become  stronger  and 
superior  to  the  Germans  in  all  arts  and  sciences.  Let,  there- 
fore, those  who  had  formerly  been  advantaged  at  the  expense 
of  the  true  owners  of  the  land  give  way  to  them,  and  let  these 
true  owners  rule  the  university  for  all  centuries. 

The  authorship  of  this  very  important  document  has  often 
been  attributed  to  Hus,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  it  was  the 
work  of  his  disciple,  Master  John  of  Jesenice.  The  question 
is  of  little  importance,  as  the  document  clearly  and  circum- 
stantially expresses  the  views  of  the  whole  national  party. 
Important  as  this  state-paper  was  in  any  case,  it  became  yet 
more  so  in  consequence  of  the  events  that  followed  almost 
immediately. 

After  the  publication  of  the  decree  of  Kutna  Hora  all  work 
at  the  university  stopped.  It  became  impossible  to  elect  a 
rector,  and  constant  conflicts  between  Bohemians  and  Ger- 
mans occurred.  The  stern  command  of  the  king  to  elect  a 
rector  remained  unheeded  by  the  Germans,  and  when  the 
royal  decree  referred  to  above  was  brought  to  their  knowledge, 
they  immediately  determined  to  carry  out  their  threats. 
Some  of  the  most  important  German  masters  had  already 
entered  into  negotiations  with  German  princes,  such  as  the 
Landgrave  of  Thuringia  and  the  Margrave  of  Meissen,  with 
regard  to  their  eventual  emigration  to  Germany.  These 
negotiations,  however,  took  up  some  time,  and  it  was  only  on 
May  16  that  a  large  number  of  German  magisters  and  students 
left  Prague  for  Leipzig.     Including  servants  and  menials,  they 


no  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

fare  stated  to  have  numbered  about  2000  men.  They  arrived 
at  Leipzig  about  the  end  of  May,  and  there  founded  a  new 
university,  of  which,  according  to  some  records,  the  former 
rector  of  the  University  of  Prague,  Henning  of  Baltenhagen, 
according  to  others,  John  of  Miinsterberg,  became  the  first 
rector.  The  former  German  students  of  Prague  never  forgave 
the  injury  which  they  had,  according  to  their  views,  suffered. 
They  became  bitter  enemies  of  Bohemia  and  of  church-reform, 
and  firm  adherents  of  the  Roman  cause.  The  Polish  students 
did  not  take  part  in  the  exodus,  but  remained  in  Prague  with 
their  comrades  of  the  kindred  Bohemian  nationality. 

The  departure  of  the  German  students  from  Prague  has 
given  rise  to  a  very  bitter  and  prolonged  controversy  that 
even  now  can  scarcely  be  considered  as  terminated.  Writers 
such  as  Hofler  and  Helfert,  whose  works  appeared  at  a  time 
when  the  Austrian  government  was  under  the  influence  of 
extreme  ultramontane  and  Teutonic  tendencies,  naturally 
sympathised  with  the  German  masters  and  students  who  held 
similar  views  four  centuries  previously.  Baron  Helfert,  a 
distinguished  conservative  statesman,  wrote  with  dignity  and 
moderation.  As  much  cannot  be  said  of  Professor  Hofler, 
who  everywhere,  and  here  in  particular,  overwhelms  Hus 
and  the  Hussites  with  an  incoherent  torrent  of  vituperation. 
Hofler  repeats  the  ancient  accusation  against  Hus  of  having 
endeavoured  to  expel  the  Germans  from  the  university. 
Even  before  Hus's  views  had  been  shown  more  clearly  by  the 
remarks  contained  in  one  of  his  recently  re-discovered  works,1 
it  was  obvious  to  all  impartial  minds  that  this  was  untrue.2 
Of  the  modern  Bohemian  writers  Palacky  was  by  the  Austrian 
authorities  only  allowed  towards  the  close  of  his  life  to  express 
his  real  views  3  with  regard  to  Hus  and  the  Hussites  and  the 

1  The  Supra  IV.  Sententiarum.     See  above. 

2  The  matter  is  stated  very  clearly  by  Mr.  Krummel  in  his  Geschichte  der 
Bohmischen  Reformation,  p.  207.  Mr.  Krummel,  though  a  German,  writes  of 
Hus  entirely  without  animus. 

J  See  my  Lectures  on  the  Historians  of  Bohemia,  pp.  95-96. 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  in 

exodus  of  the  German  students  in  particular.  Very  important, 
in  connection  with  the  departure  of  the  German  students  from 
Prague,  is  the  account  of  that  event  given  by  Professor  Tomek 
in  his  monumental  history  of  the  town  of  Prague  {Dejepis 
mesta  Prahy),  a  work  that  has  unfortunately  never  been 
translated. 

To  judge  the  question  impartially  it  is  necessary  to  con- 
sider the  circumstances  under  which  Charles  IV.  founded  the 
University  of  Prague.  I  have  given  a  brief  account  of  them  in 
Chapter  III.  of  this  work.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Charles 
founded  the  university  mainly  for  the  benefit  of  his  Bohemian 
subjects,  that  they  might,  as  he  expressly  stated,  find  at  home 
the  instruction  which  they  had  formerly  been  obliged  to 
seek  abroad.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  question  of  race 
and  nationality  immediately  became  prominent.  In  a  com- 
munity, all  whose  members  habitually  used  the  Latin  language, 
there  is  indeed  no  reason  why  this  should  have  been  the  case. 
There  is  also  no  doubt,  and  the  state-paper  of  Venceslas 
admits  this,  that  the  Bohemians  were  at  the  time  of  the  foun- 
dation of  the  university  somewhat  backward  and  inferior  in 
learning  to  the  Germans.  This  inferiority  has,  however,  been 
exaggerated  by  many  writers.  Thus,  as  mentioned  previously, 
a  large  number  of  the  earliest  teachers  at  the  university  were 
Bohemians  who  had  received  their  education  at  foreign  univer- 
sities. Other  facts  also,  such  as  the  contemporary  writings  of 
Thomas  of  Stitny,  tend  to  prove  that  the  ignorance  of  the 
Bohemians  at  this  period  has  been  exaggerated.  In  any  case,  I 
enough  is  known  of  the  character  of  Charles,  a  believer  in 
the  solidarity  of  the  Slavic  countries,  "  panslavism,"  as  it 
has  often  been  foolishly  called,1  to  state  with  full  assurance 
that  he  had  no  intention  of  founding  a  Teutonic  university. 
Charles   no   doubt   believed   that   many   students   from   the 

1  I  am  quite  aware  of  the  fact  that  many  German  writers  have  denied 
that  Charles  had  such  a  tendency.  These  writers  have  not,  I  think,  disproved 
the  assertions  of  Palacky. 


H2  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

neighbouring  kingdom  of  Poland  would  visit  the  new  univer- 
sity. These  visits,  however,  almost  ceased  after  the  founda- 
tion of  the  University  of  Cracow.  Other  changes  also  occurred. 
Universities  were  founded  in  Germany,  at  Vienna,  Heidelberg, 
and  Erfurt.  The  number  of  German  students  at  Prague  de- 
creased largely  in  consequence,  but  their  influence  continued 
as  great  as  ever.  This  was  due  to  the  system  of  voting  by 
"  nations,"  which  was  not  indeed  a  fundamental  law  of  the 
university,  but  had  been  gradually  and  tacitly  accepted. 
While  the  Germans  became  fewer  in  number,  the  Bohemian 
students  became  more  numerous  every  year.  The  university 
had  many  benefices  in  its  gift,  a  matter  of  the  highest  im- 
portance to  the  many  penniless  students  of  theology  who 
frequented  it.  These  benefices  were  of  course  bestowed  in 
accordance  with  the  system  of  vote  by  nations  that  prevailed 
in  all  matters  concerning  the  university.  The  Bohemians 
were,  therefore,  generally  excluded  from  livings  situated  in  their 
own  country  and  often  endowed  by  their  countrymen.  It 
has  often  been  stated  that  the  analogy  between  the  University 
of  Prague  and  that  of  Paris  established  by  the  decree  of  Ven- 
ceslas  is  false,  as  in  Paris  the  four  nations  were  the  French, 
Normans,  Picards,  and  English.  On  further  reflection  it, 
however,  appears  that  the  analogy  is  strikingly  true.  Though 
under  different  names  the  French,  Norman,  and  Picard  nations 
together  represented  the  national  indigenous  element  which 
possessed  three  votes,  while  the  foreigners,  that  is  to  say  the 
members  of  the  English  nation,  which  included  Germans, 
Bohemians,  and  others,  had  one. 

German  writers  have  also  enlarged  on  the  material  loss 
which  the  town  of  Prague  suffered  from  the  departure  of 
German  students.  Such  reflections  prove  an  entire  miscon- 
ception of  the  feelings  of  the  citizens  of  Prague  at  this  stormy 
period.  The  native  population  of  the  city  was  inflamed  by 
the  most  ardent  religious  and  national  enthusiasm,  and  was 
prepared  to  suffer  and  venture  everything  for  a  cause  which  it 


BEGINNING  OF  HUS'S  OPPOSITION  113 

believed  to  be  sacred.  The  citizens  indeed  proved  this  a  few 
years  later  by  their  splendid  defence  of  the  capital  when  it  was 
attacked  by  an  army  of  so-called  crusaders,  gathered  together 
from  all  parts  of  Europe.  It  must  also  be  stated  that  the 
continued  residence  of  German  students  in  Prague  would  at 
this  period,  in  any  case,  have  proved  an  impossibility.  Over- 
bearing as  German  students  have  shown  themselves  in  that 
city,  not  only  in  the  fifteenth  century,  their  presence  would 
have  led  to  constant  conflicts.  Even  the  German  citizens 
were  somewhat  later  obliged  to  leave  Prague,  as  the  Praguers 
not  unnaturally  feared  the  presence  of  enemies  in  their  camp. 
There  was  at  that  period  of  excitement  no  room  within  the 
walls  of  Prague  for  upholders  of  German  supremacy  and  of  the 
extreme  claims  of  the  Roman  hierarchy. 

As  regards  the  university,  it  cannot  be  truthfully  said  that 
it  lost  its  importance  by  becoming  a  national  one.  Indeed  it 
became,  as  will  be  mentioned  later,  after  the  death  of  Hus, 
for  a  time  the  supreme  authority  in  Bohemia  on  matters  of 
religion,  as  most  of  the  higher  members  of  the  Bohemian  clergy 
were  opposed  to  the  cause  of  church-reform.  The  downfall 
of  the  University  of  Prague  belongs  to  a  far  later  period,  that 
which  followed  the  battle  of  the  Bila  Hora  (White  Mountain). 


CHAPTER  V 

HUS   AS   LEADER   OF   HIS   NATION 

As  soon  as  the  German  students  had  left  Prague,  the  Bohe- 
mians, together  with  the  Polish  students  who  had  remained 
in  the  city,  hastened  to  obey  King  Venceslas's  command. 
They  elected  a  new  rector,  and  though  Hus  had  already  held 
that  office  a  few  years  previously,  their  choice  naturally  fell 
on  him  who  had  played  so  great  a  part  in  the  recent 
events.  Hus  was  now  at  the  height  of  his  political  position. 
Venceslas  was  undoubtedly  grateful  to  the  man  to  whose 
action  it  was  principally  due  that  the  University  of  Prague 
had  discarded  Pope  Gregory.  The  queen  and  the  Bohemian 
nobles  treated  him  with  greater  favour  than  ever.  He  was 
the  recognised  leader  of  the  university,  and  his  popularity 
among  the  citizens  of  Prague  was  very  great.  His  position 
with  respect  to  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  continued  to  be 
an  undefined  one,  and  indeed  became  constantly  more  diffi- 
cult. An  archiepiscopal  decree  had  prohibited  Hus  from 
exercising  ecclesiastical  functions,  but  he  continued  to  preach 
in  the  Bethlehem  chapel.  The  congregation  was  very 
numerous,  and  the  queen  and  many  of  the  courtiers  were 
frequently  present.  Present  also  were  some  less  desirable 
visitors.  Some  of  the  parish  priests  of  Prague,  men  who  re- 
garded Hus's  preaching  as  a  reproach  to  their  own  unedifying 
lives  and  were  therefore  his  bitterest  enemies,  were  often 
present  at  the  sermons  in  the  Bethlehem  chapel.  They  thus 
hoped  to  gather  materials  for  new  accusations  against  him. 
We  are  told  that  the  parish  priest  of  St.  Clements,  one  Protiva, 
was  in  the  habit  of  assisting  at  Hus's  sermons  and  taking  notes 
which  were  to  be  used  against  the  preacher.     This  was  one 

"4 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  115 

day  brought  to  his  notice  by  one  of  his  friends.     Hus  had  that 
day  been  preaching  on  the  difference  between  the  law  of  God 
and  the  command  of  men,  comparing  them  to  corn  and  chaff. 
What,  he  said,  is  corn  but  the  law  of  God,  what  chaff  but  the 
command  of  men  ?     Therefore  will  we  cling  firmly  to  the  laws 
of  God,  but  spurn  the  unlawful  commands  of  men.     Hus,  who 
was  here  defending  his  conduct  in  continuing  to  preach  con- 
trary to  the  injunction  of  the  archbishop,  addressed  Protiva, 
who  was  sitting  immediately  under  the  pulpit,  in  these  words: 
"  Note  that  down,  cowled  monk  (Kukliku),  and  carry  it  to  the 
other  side,"  pointing  to  the  Mala  Strana,  the  part  of  Prague 
situated  on  the  opposite  bank  of  the  river  Vltava,  where  stood 
the  archbishop's  palace.     Hus  well  knew  that  fresh  attacks 
awaited  him  on  the  part  of  the  parish  priests,  offended  not  only 
by  his  denunciations  of  vice  and  dishonesty,  but  perhaps  yet 
more  by  the  absolute  purity  of  his  life,  which  lent  itself  to 
comparisons  unfavourable  to  their  own  way  of  living.     Hus, 
however,   was  safe  for  the  moment;    not  only  because  he 
enjoyed  the  favour  of  the  king,  but  also  because  Archbishop 
Zbynek  had,  by  continuing  to  support  Pope  Gregory,  incurred 
the  displeasure  of  the  cardinals  assembled  at  Pisa.     As  the 
archbishop  and  a  large  part  of  the  Bohemian  clergy  continued 
to  oppose  their  king's  wishes  in  this  matter,  troubles  broke  out 
in  Prague,  and  some  priests  known  as  supporters  of  Pope 
Gregory  were  attacked  by  the  people.     Popular  demonstra- 
tions also  took  place  before  the  palace  of  the  archbishop. 
Zbynek,   irritated   both   against   the   king  and  the   national 
reform-party,  placed  the  city  of  Prague  and  the  surrounding 
country  under  interdict.     Declaring  that  he  was  no  longer 
safe  at  Prague,  he  left  the  city  and  retired  to  his  castle  of 
Roudnice,  where  he  was  followed  by  a  large  number  of  priests. 
The  king  was  very  indignant  at  the  attitude  of  Zbynek,  and 
also  at  the  fact  that  he  had  taken  away  with  him  to  Roudnice 
the  treasures  belonging  to  the  tomb  of  St.  Venceslas  in  the 
cathedral  of  St.  Vitus.     The  citizens  were  animated  by  feelings 


n6  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

similar  to  those  of  their  sovereign.  Numerous  attacks  were 
made  on  the  dwelling-places  of  the  parish  priests,  many  of 
whom  were  obliged  to  fly,  generally  (the  chronicler  states) 
followed  by  female  companions.  We  have  here  again  evidence 
of  the  almost  universal  immorality  of  the  parochial  clergy  of 
Prague. 

Alexander  V.  had  meanwhile  been  elected  pope  (June 
26,  1409)  by  the  cardinals  assembled  at  Pisa.  Archbishop 
Zbynek  still  hesitated  for  some  time,  but  he  finally  altered  his 
views,  and  on  September  2  recognised  Alexander  V.  as  legiti- 
mate pope.  Zbynek's  position  in  Bohemia  had  become  un- 
tenable. It  was  hopeless  for  him  to  oppose  at  the  same  time 
the  will  of  his  sovereign,  the  wishes  of  the  Bohemian  people, 
and  the  decision  of  what  had  now  become  the  dominant  party 
in  the  Roman  Church.  Zbynek  did  not  gain  in  popular 
esteem  by  this  sudden  transfer  of  his  allegiance.  Yet  for  the 
moment  this  step,  which  it  was  believed  would  put  a  stop  to 
all  internal  strife  in  Bohemia,  was  received  with  great  enthu- 
siasm. Te  Deum  and  mass  were  celebrated  in  all  the  churches 
of  the  capital.  On  the  following  day  (September  3)  the 
citizens  were  summoned  by  the  big  bell  of  the  town  hall  to 
assemble  near  it  under  the  clock-tower  three  times  in  the 
course  of  the  day  for  the  purpose  of  rejoicing.  The  whole 
city  was  illuminated  in  the  evening,  and  the  burgomaster, 
Peter  Habartovic  of  the  White  Lion,  with  the  town  councillors, 
preceded  by  trumpeters,  rode  through  the  streets  amid  general 
rejoicings.1 

This  change  of  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  archbishop 
necessarily  greatly  affected  the  fate  of  Hus.  From  the 
moment  of  their  rupture  the  archbishop,  undoubtedly  a  good 
hater,  had  endeavoured  to  harm  Hus  in  every  manner.  His 
principal  weapon  was  of  course  the  statement  that  Hus  was  a 
"  Wycliffite  " — now,  particularly  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  a 
general  term  of  opprobrium,  which  was  applied  to  all  whom  it 

1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  117 

was  desired  to  accuse  of  heresy.  The  partisans  of  Rome, 
little  acquainted  with  the  works  of  Wycliffe,  which,  indeed, 
they  were  forbidden  to  read,  had  transformed  the  English 
divine  into  a  monster  of  the  infernal  regions.  Thus  the 
Carthusian  monk,  Stephen  of  Dolein,  tells  us  in  his  Medulla 
Tritici  that  when  some  one  known  to  Stephen  was  one  night 
reading  Wycliffe 's  Trialogus,  it  appeared  to  him  as  if  Wycliffe 
had  rushed  into  the  room,  gnashing  his  teeth,  reproaching  him 
for  not  believing  his  statements  and  striking  him  heavily, 
while  many  spectators  appeared  to  be  present.  He  retired 
before  the  enraged  fiend,  but  fortunately  found  on  the  floor  a 
dungfork.  He  seized  it,  and  with  it  struck  his  adversary  so 
severe  a  blow  that  he  fell  to  the  ground.  He  then  battered 
in  his  brains  and  killed  him.  The  spectators  praised  God,  and 
the  victor,  somewhat  distressed  by  the  manslaughter  he  had 
committed,  was  comforted  by  the  spectators  with  the  words: 
Fear  not !  the  murder  of  this  man  involves  no  guilt.1  Hus,  it 
is  almost  needless  to  repeat,  always  admitted  that  he  had 
deeply  studied  the  works  of  Wycliffe  and  felt  in  sympathy 

1  This  strange  tale  should  be  given  in  Stephen's  own  Latin  words.  He 
writes:  "  Andiant  itaque  Jesu  Christi  fideles  quod  referam.  Factum  est  hoc 
tempore  ante  triduum  ut  certissime  didici  quod,  dum  quidam  vir  catholicus 
nomine  et  condicione  haec  scribenti  cognitus  scripta  nefaria  legeret,  et 
relegeret  in  suo  (Wycliffe's)  Trialogo  maxime  de  venerabili  Sacramento 
Dominici  corporis  et  etiam  per  insomnes  plurimas  noctes  pluribus  suspiriis 
et  lachrymis  molestissime  ferret,  et  Divinam  et  Ecclesiae  Sanctae  tantam 
injuriam  deplangeret:  Accidit  sibi  ut  intempeste  matutinae  Vigiliae  agens 
idipsum  paululum  reclinato  capite  discretionis  intuitu  quievisset.  Et  ecce 
Magister  ille  diversorium  illius  fremens  et  iratus  nimium  ingrediens,  non 
solum  verbis  durioribus  perstrepens,  sed  et  verberibus  horribilibus  circumcirca 
consedentibus  plurimis,  irruit  in  eum  quae  praediximus.  Qui  dum  quasi 
infirmior  non  haberet  unde  vel  quo  sibi  resisteret,  irato  cedens  et  retro,  et 
retro  se  aspiciens,  quasi  a  Domino  sibi  praeparatam  vidit  tridentem,  jacentem 
furcam  id  est  instrumentum  quo  fimus  de  stabulis  et  domibus  solet  purgari 
et  ejici.  Conversusque  hanc  arreptam  illi  in  faciem  valido  ictu  et  in  caput 
suum  impegit,  et  dejecto  eo  usque  ad  cerebri  effusionem  concussit,  manus 
confregit  et  penitus  interfecit.  Ad  cujus  spectaculum  facto  multorum 
ridelium  laetabundo  concursu,  dicentibus  et  acclamantibus  singulis,  Bene- 
dictus  Deus  qui  tradidit  impium:  dictum  est  victori  singularis  certaminis, 
perterrite  de  homicidio,  ne  timueris;  ex  nece  enim  hujus  hominis  irregu- 
laritatem  non  incurres."  (Stephanus  Dolanensis,  Medulla  Tritici,  Pez 
Thesaurus  Anccdotorum,  vol.  iv.  2,  pp.  246-247.) 


n8  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

with  many  of  the  views  expressed  in  them,  but  he  also  always 
disclaimed  the  complete  and  exclusive  dependence  on  Wycliffe 
which  his  detractors  have  attributed  to  him  both  during  his 
lifetime  and  in  more  recent  days. 

The  attempts  of  Archbishop  Zbynek  to  enforce  severer 
measures  against  Hus  were  not  at  first  successful.  As  long  as 
the  archbishop  opposed  the  cardinals  assembled  at  Pisa,  and 
the  newly-elected  pope  Alexander  V.,  he  could  expect  no  aid 
from  the  church.  The  adherents  of  Hus  even  brought  com- 
plaints against  Zbynek  before  Pope  Alexander,  who  had 
indeed  summoned  Zbynek  before  his  tribunal  when  the  news 
of  the  submission  of  the  Archbishop  of  Prague  arrived.  An 
immediate  change  took  place.  As  Dr.  Flajshans  writes,  the 
pope  preferred  as  an  ally  the  mighty  archbishop  to  the  humble 
preacher.  The  archbishop's  officials  now  attacked  Hus  not 
only  as  a  defamer  of  the  clergy  of  Prague,  but  also  as  an 
adherent  of  Wycliffe.  Wycliffe,  as  noted  above,  was  to  serve 
as  an  arm  against  Hus;  he  and  his  friends  were  to  be  stig- 
matised as  favourers  of  the  heretical  views  of  the  English 
reformer,  as  restless  and  dangerous  men;  thus  would  a  stain 
cling  to  all  their  attempts  to  reform  the  church — attempts 
which  the  archbishop  himself  had  formerly  favoured  and 
forwarded.1 

Zbynek  opened  his  new  campaign  by  again  referring  to 
the  accusations  against  Hus  which  the  parish  priest  of  Prague 
had  already  brought  forward  in  the  preceding  year  (1408). 
He  demanded  an  explanation  of  the  conduct  of  Hus,  and 
stated  that  new  complaints  against  him  had  been  brought  to 
his  knowledge.  The  very  curious  document 2  which  contains 
these  accusations  throws  a  strong  light  on  the  vast  system  of 
espionage  which  surrounded  Hus  long  before  he  had  been 
declared  an  enemy  of  the  church.  The  parochial  clergy  of 
Prague  were  bent  on  the  ruin  of  Hus  at  a  time  when  he  was 

1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii.  p.  475. 
2  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  164-169. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  n9 

still  in  high  favour  with  the  archbishop.  No  one  who  has 
taken  the  trouble  to  read  this  document  will  hesitate  to  attri- 
bute mainly  to  the  jealousy  and  animosity  of  the  parish  priests 
of  Prague  the  persecution  from  which  Hus  suffered  from  the 
beginning  of  his  preaching  to  the  moment  when  he  perished  at 
the  stake.  The  document  printed  by  Palacky  contains  mar- 
ginal notes  by  Hus  answering  some  of  the  accusations.  They 
are  very  valuable,  as  the  proceedings  at  the  archbishop's  court 
at  which  Hus  appeared  were  secret,  and  they,  therefore,  are  the 
only  clue  we  have  to  Hus's  defence.  He  himself  no  doubt 
attached  great  importance  to  them,  and  it  is  probable  that  the 
notes  were  written  out  by  him  from  memory  in  1414  before 
his  departure  for  Constance,  where  he,  as  he  knew,  would  have 
to  face  the  same  calumnies  and  accusations.  Here  only  some 
of  the  accusations  can  be  mentioned.  It  was  stated  that  Hus 
had  publicly  declared  that  a  priest  being  in  a  state  of  mortal 
sin  could  not  administer  validly  the  venerated  sacrament  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  nor  dispense  the  other  sacraments  of  the 
church.  The  note  of  Hus  ran  thus:  "  All  those  who  attended 
my  sermons  well  know  that  I  preached  the  exact  contrary, 
saying  that  a  bad  priest  administers  the  sacrament  in  the 
same  fashion  as  a  good  one,  for  it  is  the  divine  goodness  that 
acts  by  means  of  a  good  or  of  an  evil  priest."  Shortly  after- 
wards followed  another  accusation,  also  referring  to  the  then 
much  discussed  question  of  the  validity  of  the  sacraments 
when  administered  by  unworthy  priests.  Hus's  teaching  on 
this  vexed  matter  was  always  in  accordance  with  that  of  the 
Roman  Church.  The  informer  Protiva,  author  of  most  of  the 
statements  concerning  Hus,  declared  that  he  had  made  many 
of  the  remarks  that  were  incriminated  while  preaching  at  St. 
Michael's  Church.  Hus  replied  that  at  the  time  mentioned  he 
had  not  yet  been  ordained  a  priest,  and  had  not  yet  begun 
preaching.  Another  accusation  was,  that  when  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  drowning  of  John  of  Pomuk — an  event  that  oc- 
curred ten  years  previously — the  possibility  was  discussed  in 


120  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

the  house  of  Venceslas  the  cupmaker,  that  Prague  might  be 
placed  under  interdict,  Hus  had  said  that  there  was  no  reason 
why  the  religious  services  in  the  whole  kingdom  should  cease 
because  of  one  man.  The  skill  of  the  informer  appears  here. 
Hus  had  actually  stated  that  neither  because  of  the  imprison- 
ment of  murder  of  himself  or  of  any  other  man  was  it  fitting 
that  the  whole  kingdom  of  Bohemia  should  be  deprived  of  the 
spiritual  consolation  of  the  sacraments.  Hus  was  well  aware 
of  the  terror  which  the  word  interdict  inspired  in  the  minds  of 
mediaeval  citizens.  He  later  left  Prague  voluntarily,  to  save 
the  citizens  from  the  consequences  of  the  interdict. 

It  would  be  wearisome  and  indeed  somewhat  sickening  to 
record  the  various  other  accusations,  all  of  which,  like  those 
already  mentioned,  were  founded  on  distorted  remarks  of 
Hus.  One  of  the  last  points  is,  however,  of  interest.  Hus 
was  accused  of  having  by  his  preaching  caused  discord  between 
the  Bohemians  and  the  Germans.  In  reply  he  declared  that 
he  denied  this,  unless  Bohemians  and  Germans  had  sought 
offence  from  an  unjust  cause;  then  it  might  be  true. 
"  Christ,"  he  continued,  "  was  the  stumbling-block  for  those 
who  believed  not.  He  (Christ)  knows  that  I  love  a  good 
German  better  than  a  bad  Bohemian,  even  if  he  be  my  own 
brother."  Besides  the  principal  denunciator  Protiva,  other 
priests  had  taken  part  in  the  drawing  up  of  these  accusations ; 
among  them  was  Michael,  surnamed  "  de  causis,"  whom  Pro- 
fessor Tomek  describes  as  a  consummate  liar.  The  denun- 
ciators were,  however,  successful.  Hus  was  summoned  to 
appear  before  the  court  of  the  archbishop.  Though  the  pro- 
ceedings were  secret,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  his  defence 
was  in  accordance  with  the  notes,  mentioned  above,  which  he 
had  made  in  answer  to  his  accusers.  When  examined,  he  no 
doubt,  as  in  the  notes,  appealed  to  his  congregation  with  regard 
to  what  he  had  said  on  the  then  ever-recurring  question  of 
the  validity  of  the  sacraments  when  administered  by  a  priest 
who  was  in  a  state  of  mortal  sin. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  121 

However  convincing  and  eloquent  Hus's  defence  may  have 
been,  it  remained  unnoticed  as  well  as  unanswered  by  the 
archbishop.  Zbynek  sent  to  Pope  Alexander  V.  an  embassy 
furnished,  as  the  chroniclers  write,  with  many  rich  presents. 
The  envoys  stated  that  at  Prague,  in  the  whole  kingdom  of 
Bohemia,  the  margraviate  of  Moravia,  and  other  neighbouring 
lands,  the  hearts  of  many  had  been  corrupted  by  the  heretical 
"  articles  "  of  John  Wycliffe  and  particularly  by  his  teaching 
with  regard  to  the  sacrament.  As  the  shortest  and  safest 
remedy  for  these  evils,  it  was  suggested  that  in  these  countries 
preaching  should  be  forbidden  everywhere  except  in  cathedral, 
collegiate,  and  parish  churches,  and  in  those  belonging  to 
monasteries.  This  proposal,  aimed  principally  at  Hus's 
Bethlehem  chapel,  was  made  by  Dr.  George  Bor,  a  canon  of 
the  cathedral  of  Prague,  and  a  strong  opponent  of  church- 
reform.  Matters  had  proceeded  so  rapidly  that,  when  the 
embassy  appeared  before  Pope  Alexander  V.,  that  pontiff  had, 
in  consequence  of  the  complaint  of  Hus's  adherents  previously 
mentioned,  summoned  the  archbishop  before  his  tribunal. 
However,  Zbynek's  submission  to  Pope  Alexander  had  already 
produced  a  complete  change.  A  bull  issued  on  December  20j 
1409,  annulled  the  former  summons  of  the  archbishop,  and 
instructed  him  to  seek  the  advice  of  a  council  which  was  to 
consist  of  four  magisters  of  theology  and  two  doctors  of  canon 
law.  After  hearing  the  opinions  of  these  men,  the  archbishop 
was  to  forbid  all  heretical  preaching  in  virtue  of  the  apostolical 
powers  which  the  pope  conferred  on  him  for  that  purpose. 
He  was  further  instructed  to  forbid  preaching  in  all  churches 
not  belonging  to  the  four  categories  mentioned  above  and  to 
order  all  those  who  might  possess  copies  of  Wycliffe's  writings 
to  deliver  them  up  that  they  might  be  removed  "  from  the 
.sight  of  the  faithful." 

In  consequence  of  the  bad  condition  of  the  roads  during 
the  wintry  weather,  the  papal  bull  only  reached  Prague  about 
March  9,  1410.     It  gave  the  archbishop  all  necessary  power, 


^S 


122  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  use  it.  In  accordance  with  the 
papal  bull  he  appointed  six  councillors.  They  were  all  men 
strongly  opposed  to  Wycliffe's  doctrinal  teaching  and  to 
church-reform — totally  different  matters,  which  it  was  the 
archbishop's  policy  to  consider  identical.  In  direct  contra- 
diction to  the  wording  of  the  papal  bull,  Hus  immediately 
appealed  to  the  pope,  stating  that  he  (the  pope)  had  been 
wrongly  informed,  as  it  had  not  yet  been  proved  that  any  one 
in  Bohemia  had  obstinately  (i.e.,  in  opposition  to  the  ecclesias- 
tical authorities)  defended  the  teaching  of  Wycliffe  and,  as 
Archbishop  Zbynek  had  himself  declared  in  1408,  that 
Bohemia  was  free  from  heresy.  The  councillors,  undoubtedly 
formally  in  the  right,  ignored  this  appeal.  It  soon  became 
known  in  Prague  that  their  decision  would  be  in  accordance 
with  the  papal  bull,  that  they  would  express  themselves  in 
favour  of  the  destruction  of  Wycliffe's  writings  and  of  the 
suppression  of  preaching  in  the  Bethlehem  chapel.  The 
university  was,  however,  still  on  the  side  of  Hus.  At  a  general 
meeting  on  June  15,  under  the  presidency  of  John  Sindler, 
who  had  succeeded  Hus  as  rector,  the  members  of  the  univer- 
sity protested  against  the  intention  of  burning  Wycliffe's 
writings  and  appealed  to  the  king,  begging  him  to  forbid  this 
destruction,  which  would  give  great  offence  both  to  the  king- 
dom and  to  the  university. 

Zbynek,  now  entirely  in  accordance  with  the  papal  see, 
was  not  to  be  deterred  by  protests  of  scholars  whom  as  a  true 
mediaeval  warrior  he  probably  held  in  great  contempt.  He 
took  immediate  action.  On  June  16,  the  day  after  the  meet- 
ing of  the  university,  the  customary  summer  convocation  of 
the  clergy  took  place  at  St.  Vitus's  cathedral.  The  papal  bull, 
as  well  as  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  the  theologians 
consulted  by  Zbynek,  were  read  to  the  assembly.  The  decree 
of  the  councillors  stated  that  eighteen  of  Wycliffe's  works, 
among  them  the  Dialogus  and  Trialogus,  were  heretical,  and 
that  all  who  possessed  copies  of  these  works  were  to  bring 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  123 

them  to  the  archbishop's  palace  within  six  days.  Under 
penalty  of  the  loss  of  ecclesiastical  benefices  and  of  other 
punishment  it  was  forbidden  to  maintain  or  teach  the  heresies 
of  Wycliffe,  particularly  those  referring  to  the  sacrament  of 
the  altar.  The  archbishop,  in  agreement  with  his  councillors, 
further  declared  that  he  would  in  case  of  need  appeal  to  the 
secular  authority  of  King  Venceslas,  and  finally  reiterated 
the  injunction  not  to  preach  in  churches  other  than  those 
belonging  to  the  categories  that  have  already  been  mentioned. 
This  step  was  a  fateful  one — one  of  which  Zbynek  assuredly 
did  not  see  the  importance.  All  hope  of  a  pacific  reformation 
of  the  Bohemian  Church  on  the  lines  indicated  by  Waldhauser 
and  Milic  ended  here.  The  views  expressed  by  Milic  and 
Matthew  of  Janov  differed  but  little  from  those  of  Hus,  but  the 
latter,  inflamed  with  holy  enthusiasm  for  the  welfare  of  man- 
kind and  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  was  not  a  man 
prepared  to  meekly  retract  words  which  he  believed  to  have 
uttered  in  accordance  with  a  divine  command.  He  rejected 
blind  obedience  when  it  appeared  to  him  that  the  authority  of 
the  church  was  used  in  an  unlawful  manner,  prejudicial  to 
the  true  interest  of  the  church  itself.  It  was  not  indeed  the 
defence  of  Wycliffe's  doctrines  that  appeared  to  Hus  to  have 
the  greatest  importance.  What  in  Wycliffe's  works  could  be 
authoritatively  declared  heretical  he  was  ready  to  reject, 
though  there  was  much  in  the  teaching  of  the  English  divine 
that  attracted  him.  But  the  prohibition  of  preaching  in 
chapels  involved  a  cessation  of  all  attempts  to  reform  the 
terribly  demoralised  clergy  of  Prague.  In  chapels  only  and 
in  the  Bethlehem  chapel  in  particular  free  speech  could  be  said 
to  exist.  The  prohibition  also  put  a  term  to  all  attempts  on 
the  part  of  Hus  and  his  disciples  to  reach  the  lowly  population 
of  the  city  bv  preaching  to  them  in  a  popular  manner  and  in  a 
language  understood  by  all.  Hus  considered  the  prohibition 
as  an  indefensible  attack  on  the  freedom  of  God's  word  and  as 
a  deed  opposed  to  Christ's  own  law.     This  appeared  to  him  a 


124  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

matter  in  which  it  was  his  duty  to  obey  God  rather  than 


man 


It  was  in  accordance  with  these  views  that  Hus  preached 
at  the  Bethlehem  chapel  on  June  22.     Popular  excitement 


was  at  its  height  and  the  crowd  was  immense.  He  declared 
that  the  recently  deceased  pope  (the  news  of  the  death  of 
Alexander  V.  had  just  reached  Prague)  had  stated  that  there 
were  in  Bohemia  many  heretics,  that  is  to  say,  men  who  obsti- 
nately opposed  the  teaching  of  Christ  as  contained  in  Scripture. 
This  untruthful  statement  had  been  believed  by  the  pope  on 
the  authority  of  Bohemian  priests.  Hus  then  referred  to  the 
intention  of  burning  Wycliffe's  works.  These  works,  he  con- 
tended, did  not  contain  heretical  statements  only,  but  also 
much  that  was  good.  He  further  declared  that  he  would 
appeal  to  the  new  pope  against  the  archbishop's  decree,  and 
asked  his  congregation  whether  they  would  stand  by  him. 
All  present  cried:  "  We  will  stand  by  you."  Hus  concluded 
by  declaring  that  he  would  not  cease  to  preach  even  should  he 
be  driven  from  the  land  or  perish  in  prison.  He  entreated  the 
faithful  to  be  steadfast,  for  the  time  might  come  when  it 
would  be  necessary,  according  to  the  words  of  Moses,  to  gird 
on  the  sword  and  defend  the  word  of  God. 

The  effect  of  this  sermon  was  very  great,  as  may  be 
imagined.  The  popular  excitement  did  not  escape  the  obser- 
vation of  King  Venceslas,  whose  natural  shrewdness  made 
him  a  good  judge  of  the  feelings  of  the  people  of  Prague,  which 
he  knew  so  well.  The  king  strongly  urged  the  archbishop  to 
delay  all  further  steps,  and  at  last  obtained  his  promise  to  do 
so,  at  least  up  to  the  time  when  the  king's  cousin,  Margrave 
Jodocus  of  Moravia,  should  arrive  in  Prague.  Jodocus  had 
the  reputation  of  being  a  man  of  moderate  and  enlightened 
views,  and  it  was  known  that  Hus  had  sent  him  a  copy  of  his 
translation  of  Wycliffe's  Trialogus.  It  was  hoped  that  he 
would  act  as  mediator.     Hus  employed  this  brief  delay  for  the 

1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii.  p.  481. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  125 

purpose  of  preparing  the  appeal  which  he  now  sent  to  Pope 
John  XXIII.  He  protested  against  the  bull  of  Alexander 
based  on  untrue  statements  made  from  personal  motives  by 
Bohemian  ecclesiastics.  He  also  protested  against  the  in- 
tended burning  of  Wycliffe's  works,  many  of  which  were 
treatises  on  philosophy,  logic,  and  other  matters  not  connected 
with  theology.  He  also  claimed  for  the  university  the  right  of 
reading  Wycliffe's  other  works,  as  they  had,  according  to  the 
regulations,  to  read  also  the  works  of  Aristotle,  Averroes,  and 
other  "  heathens  whose  works  teemed  with  heresies."  Almost 
at  the  same  moment  the  archbishop  addressed  to  the  "  diavolo 
cardinale,"  now  Pope  John  XXIII.,  a  letter  in  which  he  de- 
nounced Hus  as  the  originator  of  all  troubles  in  Bohemia  and 
as  a  defender  of  Wycliffe's.  Zbynek  then  alluded  to  the 
sermon  of  Hus  at  the  Bethlehem  chapel  on  June  22,  and  begged 
the  pope  to  order  him  to  appear  for  judgment  before  the  papal 
court. 

Meanwhile  the  archbishop,  as  Margrave  Jodocus  did  not 
arrive,  determined  to  act  without  further  delay.  On  July  16 
he  assembled  the  prelates  and  principal  ecclesiastical  digni- 
taries in  the  court  of  his  palace,  which  was  barricaded  and 
guarded  by  a  considerable  armed  force.  A  stake  was  erected 
in  the  middle  of  the  court,  and  Wycliffe's  books  were  placed 
on  it.  The  archbishop  then  himself  lighted  the  pile,  and  all 
present  sang  the  Te  Deum  while  the  books  were  burning. 

King  Venceslas  was  on  that  day  absent  from  Prague;  he 
would  otherwise  undoubtedly  have  opposed  by  force  the  work 
of  the  archbishop.  Zbynek  himself  appears  to  have  felt  that 
he  had  taken  on  himself  a  grave  responsibility.  Not  feeling 
safe  in  Prague,  he  left  the  city  immediately  after  the  burning 
of  the  books,  and  retired  to  his  castle  of  Roudnice.  He  there 
pronounced  the  sentence  of  excommunication  against  Hus. 
The  fears  of  Zbynek  were  not  altogether  unfounded.  There 
had  sprung  up  among  the  people  of  Prague  an  intense  hatred 
of  the   archbishop   and   the   clergy — particularly   the   parish 


i26  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

priests,  whose  evil  life  caused  much  unhappiness  among  the 
citizens.  The  situation  at  Prague  at  this  moment  is  quaintly 
and  Fstrikingly  described  by  a  contemporary  chronicler.1 
After  stating  that  in  the  year  1410  the  books  of  Master  John 
Wycliffe  the  Englishman  were  burnt  in  the  courtyard  of  the 
archbishop's  palace,  the  author  writes:  "  Then  a  great  storm 
arose  and  much  strife  between  the  king's  courtiers  and  the 
canons  and  priests.  Songs  against  the  archbishop  were  sung 
everywhere  in  Prague.  There  was  at  that  time  much  discord 
between TtheTcanons  and  Master  John  of  Husinec.  Some 
said  that  many  other  books  besides  those  of  Wycliffe  had 
been  burnt,  and  thus  the  people  became  enraged.  Some 
took  the  part  of  the  canons  and  some  that  of  Hus.  Hence- 
forth there  was  great  discord  among  the  people.  The  choir 
boys  who  lived  on  the  castle  (the  Hradcany)  waylaid  all  passers- 
by  who  adhered  to  Hus,  and  when  they  saw  one  they  seized 
him,  dragged  him  into  the  common  room,  stripped  him,  and 
whipped  him  unmercifully  with  birchrods."  This  passage  is 
curious  also  as  showing  that  it  was  not  only  by  the  partisans 
of  Hus  that  excesses  were  committed — as  has  been  frequently 
stated.  The  latter  were,  however,  generally  stronger,  and 
they  prevented  in  most  churches  the  publication  of  the  sen- 
tence excommunicating  Hus.  As  the  chronicle  quoted  above 
relates,  songs  on  the  events  of  the  day,  mostly  abusive  of  the 
archbishop,  whose  great  ignorance  was  greatly  exaggerated, 
were  sung  everywhere.  One  of  these  songs  seems  to  have  been 
very  popular  and  obtained  great  popularity.  It  alluded  to 
Zbynek's  want  of  learning  and  ran  thus : 

"  Zbynek,  bishop  A.  B.  C. 
Burnt  the  books,  but  ne'er  knew  he 
What  was  in  them  written."  * 

1  Start  Letopisove  cesti  (Ancient  Bohemian  Chroniclers),  edited  by  Palacky, 
hi.  pp.  12-13. 

*  I  quote  this  good  though  not  literal  translation  from  the  late  Rev. 
A.  H.  Wratislaw's  John  Hus,  p.  141.  The  words  are  in  the  Bohemian 
original,  "  Zbynek,  biskup  Abeceda  spalil  knihy  a  neveda  co  jest  v   nich 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  127 

Venceslas  did  his  best  to  maintain  order  in  his  capital. 
He  severely  prohibited  rioting  in  the  streets  and  the  singing  of 
abusive  songs.  He  also,  with  great  fairness,  requested  the 
archbishop  to  indemnify  those  whose  books  had  been  seized 
and  burnt.  As  a  protest  against  the  destruction  of  the  writ- 
ings of  Wycliffe,  Hus  and  his  adherents,  according  to  the 
academic  customs  of  the  time,  held  a  great  disputation  in  the 
large  hall  of  the  Carolinum  college.  The  disputation,  in  which 
various  speakers  were  to  defend  works  of  Wycliffe,  began  on 
July  27.  Hus  himself  on  that  day  spoke  in  defence  of 
Wycliffe's  book,  De  Trinitate.  Hus's  treatise,  De  Libris 
Haereticorum  Legendis,  written  about  this  time,  covers  almost 
exactly  the  same  ground,  and  we  find  in  it  the  contents  of 
Hus's  speech.  Hus  in  it  strongly  blamed  the  burning  of 
Wycliffe's  writings.  These  works  at  any  rate  contained  much 
that  was  good,  and  their  destruction  had  brought  discord  and 
trouble  into  the  country.  Even  should  these  books  have 
contained  heretical  opinions,  they  should  not  have  been  burnt. 
Otherwise  might  they  have  burnt  also  the  work  of  Peter  Lom- 
bard— to  whom,  as  we  know,  Hus  owed  so  much — or  those  of 
Aristotle.  If,  he  continued,  the  doctors  said  that  none  should 
inquire  but  all  should  submit — a  theory  that  has  a  strangely 
modern  aspect — then  they  were  worse  than  Jews  and  Pharisees. 
Christ  conversed  with  the  heretical  Sadducees.  Hus  ended  by 
declaring  that  he  would  not  submit  to  the  prohibition  of 
preaching  and  that  he  would  undauntedly  face  all  dangers 
which  might  result  from  such  a  course.     On  the  following  days,  ' 

napsano."  Professor  Hofler,  who  had  a  very  slight  acquaintance  with  the 
Bohemian  language,  quoted  the  song  from  Cochlaeus's  Latin  history  of  the 
Hussite  wars,  where  some  distorted  and  meaningless  words  are  supposed  to 
render  the  Bohemian  wording.  These  words  Hofler  thus  translated  into 
German:  "  Der  Saumagen  hat  das  Schone  verbrannt  " — i.e.,  "  The  pig  burnt 
beautiful  things."  These  words  have  not  even  the  remotest  resemblance  to 
the  meaning  of  the  song,  and  Hofler  merely  intended  to  impute  coarse  lan- 
guage to  the  Bohemians.  The  matter  is  fully  noticed  by  Dr.  Nedoma  in  the 
Journal  of  the  Bohemian  Learned  Society  (Vestnik  spolecnosti  nauk),  February 
23,  1891.  I  allude  to  the  matter  here,  as  even  recent  English  writers  do 
not  appear  to  have  known  how  untrustworthy  Hofler  often  was. 


128  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

up  to  the  31st,  the  disputations  continued,  and  several  of 
Hus's  principal  adherents  spoke  in  defence  of  various  writings 
of  Wycliffe. 

Preaching  at  the  Bethlehem  chapel  continued  meanwhile. 
As  the  king  had  been  informed  that  Hus  had  appealed  to  the 
pope,  he  ignored  the  excommunication  pronounced  by  the 
archbishop  and  continued  to  extend  his  protection  to  Hus. 
When  shortly  afterwards  Antony  de  Monte  Catino  arrived  at 
Prague  to  announce  officially  the  accession  to  the  papal  throne 
of  Pope  John  XXIII. ,  King  Venceslas  and  Queen  Sophia 
availed  themselves  of  this  occasion  to  enter  into  communica- 
tion with  the  pope  concerning  the  state  of  affairs  in  Bohemia. 
King  Venceslas  addressed  one  and  Queen  Sophia  two  letters 
to  the  pope,  and  each  of  the  royal  consorts  wrote  also  to  the 
college  of  the  cardinals.1  Queen  Sophia  undoubtedly  had  the 
question  of  the  freedom  of  preaching  very  much  at  heart.  In 
her  first  letter  to  the  pope  she  strongly  protested  against  the 
decree  "  which,  contrary  to  the  precepts  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  forbids  the  preaching  of  the  word  of  God,  except  in 
monasteries  and  parish  churches,"  and  begged  that  "  the 
Bethlehem  chapel,  which  we  consider  most  useful  to  us  and 
the  inhabitants  of  our  kingdom  for  hearing  the  word  of  God, 
may  not  be  deprived  of  its  privilege."  In  her  letter  to  the 
cardinals  the  queen  again  returns  to  the  same  subject,  and 
declares  that  the  decree  limiting  preaching  to  monasteries  and 
parish  churches,  published  under  the  influence  of  those  who 
were  opposed  to  evangelical  teaching,  was  contrary  to  Scrip- 
ture, as  it  was  well  known  "  that  the  word  of  God  must  not  be 
fettered,  but  should  be  preached  in  hamlets,  streets,  houses, 
and  indeed  everywhere  where  the  necessity  arises."  The  in- 
fluence of  Hus  is  very  evident  in  the  letter  mentioned  last, 
and  it  gives  a  clue  to  the  fact  that  shortly  after  the  death  of 
Hus  the  council  of  Constance  decided  to  accuse  Queen  Sophia 

'The  five  letters,  all  dated  September  12  or  16,   1410,  are  printed  by 
Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  409-413. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  129 

of  heresy.1  Venceslas  on  this  occasion  certainly  acted  in 
accordance  with  the  feelings  of  the  Bohemian  people,  if  we 
except  the  baser  part  of  the  clergy,  who  believed  that  free 
preaching  was  favourable  to  church-reform — the  thing  which 
from  selfish  motives  they  detested  more  than  all  others. 
Thus  Lord  Lacek  of  Kravar,  a  high  court  official,  and  Nicholas 
of  Potstyn,  Lord  of  Zampach,  wrote  to  Pope  John  protesting 
strongly  against  all  attempts  to  limit  the  liberty  of  preaching. 
The  town  councils  of  the  cities  of  Prague  also  added  their 
protest.  The  prohibition  of  preaching  in  the  Bethlehem 
chapel,  they  wrote,  and  the  burning  of  Wycliffe's  writings  had 
caused  hatred,  quarrels,  incendiarism,  and  murder  among  the 
citizens,  who  had  with  constant  faith  professed  entirely  the 
Catholic  creed.  The  citizens  of  the  old  town  did  not  omit  to 
mention  that  they  had  vested  interests  in  the  matter,  as  the 
appointment  of  one  of  the  two  preachers  in  the  Bethlehem 
chapel  was  in  the  gift  of  their  town  council.2 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  the  impression  which  these  letters 
may  have  produced  on  Baldassare  Cossa.  He  probably 
thought  that  the  men  of  the  north  took  matters  of  slight  im- 
portance very  seriously.  Though  no  one  who  knows  the 
absolute  recklessness  with  which  the  theologians  of  the  period 
of  the  schism  levelled  even  the  most  monstrous  accusations 
against  their  opponents  will  believe  all  that  was  said  against 
the  diavolo  cardincde  at  Constance,  yet  it  is  not  unfair  to 
believe  that  he  held  no  very  firm  opinions  on  matters  of 
religion.  The  letters  from  Bohemia  would,  however,  in  any 
case  have  remained  resultless.  Before  receiving  them  the 
pope,  who  was  then  residing  at  Bologna,  had  already  entrusted 

1  Referring  to  these  letters  of  Queen  Sophia  and  others  that  will  be 
mentioned  later,  Baron  Helfert,  a  firm  adherent  of  the  Roman  Church  in  his 
"  Hus  und  Hieronymus,"  violently  attacks  Queen  Sophia  and  the  interference 
of  women  in  politics  generally.  I  have  given  a  short  account  of  this  diatribe 
in  my  Bohemia,  a  Historical  Sketch,  p.  129,  n.  Baron  Helfert  is  undoubtedly- 
right  in  stating  that  Hussitism  owed  much  to  women. 

2  The  letters  of  the  nobles  and  citizens  are  printed  by  Palacky,  Dociimenta 
pp.  4I3-4I5- 

I 


i3o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

all  the  documents  concerning  the  Bohemian  controversy  to 
Cardinal  Odone  Colonna  (afterwards  Pope  Martin  V.)  and 
empowered  him  to  decide  the  question.  The  cardinal,  show- 
ing evidence  here  already  of  that  hatred  of  Bohemia  which 
was  to  be  a  prominent  feature  in  his  later  life,  immediately 
gave  his  decision  in  a  sense  entirely  favourable  to  Archbishop 
Zbynek.  A  bull  was  forwarded  to  the  archbishop,  which  in 
its  purport  was  identical  with  that  formerly  sent  by  Pope 
Alexander.  According  to  the  wishes  of  the  archbishop,  Hus 
was  summoned  to  appear  immediately  before  the  papal 
tribunal. 

The  Bohemian  court  was,  not  unnaturally,  very  indignant. 
Both  the  king  and  the  queen  again  addressed  letters  of  remon- 
strance to  the  pope  and  to  the  college  of  cardinals.1  Though 
the  king  writes  here  in  a  very  manly  manner,  and  his  letters 
convey  a  favourable  impression,  which  is  always  the  case 
when  he  writes  under  the  influence  of  Queen  Sophia,  yet  the 
queen's  letters  are  more  to  the  purpose,  and,  it  may  be  added, 
more  peremptory.  The  queen,  being  a  friend  of  Hus,  grasped 
more  clearly  than  her  husband  what  was  the  moral  value  of 
the  man  for  whom  she  was  interceding,  and  what  that  of 
Baldassare  Cossa  and  his  cardinals.  In  her  letter  to  John 
XXIII.  the  queen  complained  of  the  legal  proceedings  at  the 
papal  courts  which  had  caused  disgust  in  the  kingdom,  of  the 
incessant  excommunications,  of  the  prohibition  of  the  preach- 
ing of  the  word  of  God.  She  specially  interceded  for  the 
Bethlehem  chapel,  "  in  which  she  had  frequently  heard  God's 
word,"  and  begged  that  "  John  Hus,  her  faithful,  devoted, 
beloved  chaplain  might,  because  of  his  many  enemies,  be  re- 
lieved from  the  obligation  of  appearing  in  person  before  the 
pope."  In  her  letter  to  the  college  of  cardinals  the  queen 
begged  the  college  "  for  the  honour  of  God,  for  the  salvation 
and  quiet  of  the  people,  and  for  her  own  pleasure  "  to  main- 
tain in  the  possession  of  the  Bethlehem  chapel  "  her  devoted 

1  The  four  letters  are  printed  by  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  422-425. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  131 

and  beloved  chaplain,  John  Hus,"  and  to  relieve  him  from  the 
obligation  of  appearing  at  the  papal  court.  Otherwise — here 
the  tone  of  the  queen  became  somewhat  menacing — her  con- 
sort, King  Venceslas,  in  union  with  herself  and  the  barons  of 
the  kingdom,  would  take  himself  the  necessary  steps  that  all 
disturbances  caused  by  foreign  intervention  should  cease. 

The  position  of  Hus  became  in  consequence  of  the  papal 
summons  a  very  difficult  one.  The  dissuasion  of  his  kind 
friends  and  adherents  would  not  certainly  have  prevented 
him  from  proceeding  to  Italy  had  he  believed  it  to  be  his  duty 
to  do  so.  Hus,  however,  firmly  believed  that  no  advantage 
would  be  obtained  by  the  Bohemian  Church  and  the  party  of'; 
church-reform  should  he  appear  before  John  XXIII.  Ac- 
quainted with  the  character  of  that  pontiff,  he  well  knew  what 
opinion  he  would  form  of  one  who  had  spoken  so  strongly 
against  the  vices  and  the  evil  life  of  the  priests  of  Prague.  He 
would,  therefore,  have  to  encounter  the  perils  of  the  journey — 
he  would  have  to  pass  through  the  territory  of  the  Bishop  of 
Passau,  one  of  the  most  determined  enemies  of  church-reform 
— without  any  probability  of  a  satisfactory  result.  He  would 
have  to  spend  the  money  with  which  others  were  ready  to 
supply  him  for  the  journey,  but  which,  as  a  conscientious  man, 
he  believed  should  rather  be  given  to  the  poor.  He  would 
have  for  a  time  to  desert  his  congregation  at  Bethlehem. 
Jerome  of  Prague  was  then  in  the  city,  and  Hus,  though  he 
showed  him  the  greatest  kindness,  well  knew  what  dangers 
the  levity  and  thoughtlessness  of  Jerome  might  cause  were  he 
left  uncontrolled.1 

1  Hus  has  himself  very  clearly  expressed  the  objections  to  his  journey  to 
Italy.  He  writes:  "  Quis  ergo  color  vel  que  ratio  obedientiae  ut  persona 
citata  per  CCC  milliaria,  Papae  incognita  ab  inimicis  delata,  tarn  anxie 
vadat  per  inimicos  judices  et  testes  consumat  bona  pauperum  sumptuose  vel 
non  habeus  sumptus  vadat  misere  in  siti  et  esurie  et  quis  fructus  compari- 
tionis?  Certe  laboris  a  Deo  injuncti  negligentia,  quoad  propriam  salutem  et 
aliorum.  Et  nee  ibi  docebitur  bene  credere,  sed  litigare,  quod  non  licet  servo 
Dei.  Ibi  spoliabitur  in  consistoriis,  in  moribus  Sanctis  refrigejcit,  ad  im- 
patientiam  per  oppressionem  incitabitur  et  si  non  habuerit  dare,  condemna- 
bitur,  etiam  habens  justitiam.  Et  quod  gravius  est,  compelletur  Papain  ut 
Deum  flexis  genibus  adorare."     (De  Ecclesia,  capitulum  xxi.) 


i32  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Hus  therefore  decided  not  to  travel  to  Italy,  but  through 
the  advice  of  his  friends  at  the  court  of  King  Venceslas,  and 
perhaps  in  accordance  with  the  wise  councils  of  Queen  Sophia, 
he  determined  on  sending  representatives  to  the  court  of  Pope 
John  XXIII.  He  chose  for  this  purpose  his  friend  Master 
John  of  Jesenice,  doctor  of  theology,  who,  according  to  some 
accounts,  was  at  that  moment  at  Bologna.  Two  younger 
theologians  were  to  act  as  his  assistants.  Jesenice  was  at 
first  able  to  report  good  news.  On  the  suggestion  of  Arch- 
bishop Zbynek,  who  had  also  sent  envoys  to  Bologna,  John 
XXIII.  had  requested  the  University  of  Bologna  to  deliberate 
on  the  question  whether  the  burning  of  Wycliffe's  works  had 
been  justified.  At  a  meeting  of  the  magisters,  at  which  re- 
presentatives of  the  universities  of  Paris  and  Oxford  were 
also  present,  it  was  decided  almost  unanimously  that  the  burn- 
ing was  not  justifiable.  It  was  also  declared  that  Wycliffe's 
writings  on  logic,  philosophy,  morals,  and  theology  contained 
much  that  was  true,  good,  and  useful.  This  decision  was  un- 
doubtedly a  victory  of  Hus  in  his  contest  with  the  archbishop. 
Jesenice,  seeing  it  in  that  light,  caused  the  public  notary  to 
draw  up  an  official  document  which,  on  the  authority  of  the 
dominican  Thomas  of  Udine,  dean  of  the  theological  faculty, 
who  had  presided  at  the  meeting,  stated  the  decisions  of  the 
assembly  as  they  are  recorded  above.  A  copy  of  this  docu- 
ment x  was  forwarded  to  Prague. 

Hus  and  his  friends  probably  overrated  the  importance  of 
this  decision.  Pope  John  XXIII. ,  as  previously  mentioned, 
had  entrusted  to  Cardinal  Colonna  the  entire  control  of  the 
investigations  referring  to  the  dissension  between  the  arch- 
\  bishop  and  Hus.  The  cardinal  lost  no  time  in  coming  to  a 
decision  in  a  matter  in  which  he  believed  the  authority  and 
particularly  the  worldly  power  of  the  church  to  be  at  stake. 
The  rich  gifts  brought  by  the  envoys  of  the  archbishop  no 
doubt  confirmed  his  views.     When,  in  February  141 1,  the  term 

1  Printed  by  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  426-428. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  133 

fixed  for  the  appearance  of  Hus  at  the  papal  court  in  Bologna 
had  elapsed,  Cardinal  Colonna,  with  the  authorisation  of  the 
pope,  pronounced  the  penalty  of  excommunication  agaiust 
Hus  because  of  his  disobedience.  The  archbishop  was  im- 
mediately informed  of  this  decision,  and  he  gave  the  order  that 
the  papal  decree  should  immediately  be  made  known  in  all  the 
parish  churches  of  Prague.  This  was  carried  out  on  March  15 
in  all  the  parish  churches  except  in  that  of  St.  Nicholas  in  the 
old  town,  where  Master  Stephen  of  Prachatice,  an  intimate 
friend  of  Hus,  was  parish  priest,  and  in  that  of  St.  Benedict. 

The  events  in  Bohemia  had  meanwhile  begun  to  attract 
greater  attention  in  Europe  than  had  been  the  case  at  first. 
It  has  been  mentioned  that  representatives  of  the  universities 
of  Oxford  and  Paris  had  taken  part  in  the  deliberations  at 
Bologna.  Latin  then  being  the  universal  language  of  inter- 
course between  scholars  of  all  countries,  information  as  to 
matters  of  interest  to  the  learned  found  their  way  from  one 
country  to  another  very  rapidly.  Great  as  is  the  distance 
between  England  and  Bohemia,  it  was  in  England  that  the 
movement  in  favour  of  church-reform  attracted  more  atten- ,' 
tion  than  in  countries  nearer  to  Bohemia.  The  reason  is  not 
far  to  seek.  The  movement  which  Hus  had  initiated  in 
Bohemia  pursued  in  many  respects  objects  similar  to  those 
for  which  Wycliffe  had  formerly  contended  in  England.  In 
both  countries  the  evils  caused  by  the  demoralisation  of  the 
clergy,  its  avarice  and  greed  for  worldly  power,  were  equally 
obvious.  In  England  as  in  Bohemia  the  more  serious  men 
wished  the  churches  of  their  countries  to  be  more  independent 
of  Rome,  and  desired,  if  necessary  by  force,  to  oblige  the  rich 
and  luxurious  clergy  to  lead  a  simpler  life — one  more  similar 
to  that  of  the  founder  of  Christianity.  It  has  been  stated 
previously  that  attempts  have  often  been  made  to  exaggerate 
the  dependence  of  Bohemia  on  the  earlier  movement  in  Eng- 
land. The  strong  and  enthusiastic  efforts  of  Milic  and  his 
successors  to  reform  the  Bohemian  Church  suffice  to  prove 


134  THE  LIFE  0F  J°HN  HUS 

that  the  Bohemian  movement  was  largely  an  indigenous  one. 
It  may  here  be  mentioned  that  one  of  the  earliest  writers  who 
attempted  to  prove  the  dependence  of  the  Bohemian  reform 
movement  was  the  notoriously  mendacious  historian  Hajek 
of  Libocan.  He  stated  that  two  otherwise  unknown  English- 
men, "  Jacob  the  bachelor  "  and  "  Conrad  of  Kandelburgk  " 
(Canterbury),  first  spread  anti-Roman  views  in  Bohemia,1 
"  By  greatly  exaggerating  the  English  influence  on  the  foun- 
dation of  Hussitism  and  stigmatising  it  as  a  foreign  movement, 
Hajek,  as  he  well  knew,  greatly  injured  the  Hussites;  for  the 
intense  national  feeling  that  has  always  animated  the 
Bohemians  has  produced  among  them  an  often  exaggerated 
distrust  of  foreign  interference."  2  Though  the  influence  of 
England  on  Bohemia  has  been  exaggerated,  it  is  certain  that 
the  Bohemian  Church  in  its  struggle  against  Rome  found 
sympathy  in  England  at  an  early  period.  On  September  io, 
141  o,  Hus  received  a  letter  from  an  English  adherent  of 
Wycliffe  that  caused  great  commotion  among  the  little  com- 
munity of  Bethlehem.  It  was  long  difficult  to  ascertain  the 
name  of  the  writer  of  this  letter  which  in  different  MSS. 
appears  as  Richard  Fitz,  Richardus  Vitze,  and  Richard  Wiche- 
witze.  It  has,  however,  now  been  ascertained  that  the  writer 
was  Richard  Wiche,  a  Lollard,  mentioned  by  Foxe,3  who  was 
executed  in  1439,  and  whose  memory  became  so  popular  that 
a  decree  prohibiting  pilgrimages  to  the  spot  where  he  had  been 
executed  was  published.  Richard  Wiche  in  his  letter  4  states 
that  he  greatly  rejoiced  at  the  news  that  they  (the  Bohemians) 
also  walked  in  the  path  of  truth.  He  had  heard  that  they  also 
had  suffered  tribulations,  but — Wiche  writes — "  Let  us  seek 
comfort  in  our  Lord  God  and  His  immense  kindness,  believing 
firmly  that  it  will  not  allow  us,  God's  workers,  to  be  deprived 

1  See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  pp.  304-309. 

2  Ibid.  p.  409. 

3  The  Acts  and  Monuments  of  John  Fox,  vol.  iii.  p.  702  (edition  of  1837). 
*  Printed  by   Hofier,   Geschichtschreiber    der    Hussitischen    Bewegung   in 

Bohmen,  vol.  ii.  p.  210. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  135 

of  goodness  if  we,  as  it  is  our  duty,  love  God  with  our  whole 
hearts;  for  adversity  would  not  prevail  among  us,  did  not 
iniquity  rule.  Therefore,  let  no  tribulation  or  suffering  for 
Christ's  sake  cast  us  down,  for  we  know  for  certain  that  whom 
the  Lord  God  deigns  to  receive  as  His  sons,  those  He  chastises." 
Later  Wiche  writes,  addressing  Hus:  '  You,  Hus,  beloved 
brother  in  Christ,  are  indeed  unknown  to  me  by  face,  but  not 
by  faith  and  love,  for  the  whole  surface  of  the  earth  would  not 
suffice  to  separate  those  whom  the  love  of  Christ  effectually 
joins.  Take  comfort  in  the  grace  that  has  been  given  to  thee. 
Preach  the  truth  by  word  and  example  and  recall  whom  thou 
canst  to  the  path  of  truth,  for  it  is  not  because  of  vain  censures 
and  antichristian  fulminations  that  the  evangelical  truth 
should  be  concealed.  ..."  Wiche's  letter  gives  evidence  of 
his  surprising  knowledge  of  the  state  of  affairs  in  Bohemia 
and  of  his  acquaintance  with  the  names  of  the  men  who  were 
playing  a  prominent  part  in  the  Bohemian  reform  movement. 
Thus  he  sends  at  the  end  of  his  letter  greetings  to  all  faithful 
lovers  of  God's  law  and  particularly  to  Hus's  "  helper  in 
evangelical  work,  Jacobellus."  This  refers  to  the  famed 
Master  Jacob,  or  Jacobellus  of  Stribro  (in  German,  Mies),  who 
played  a  great  part  in  the  Hussite  movement  during  the  last 
years  of  the  life  of  Hus  and  after  his  death. 

A  letter  from  so  distant  a  country  as  England  naturally 
was  received  with  great  enthusiasm  by  the  congregation  of 
Bethlehem.  It  cannot  be  better  described  than  in  the  words 
of  Hus  contained  in  the  letter  which  he  wrote  in  answer  to 
that  of  Wiche.1  "  Your  letter,"  he  wrote,  "  which  descended 
on  us  as  from  the  Father  of  Light,  strongly  inflamed  the  minds 
of  the  brethren  in  Christ;  for  it  contains  so  much  sweetness, 
power,  strength,  and  consolation  that  if  by  Antichrist  all  other 
writings  were  swept  away  into  a  chasm,  it  would  for  the 
faithful  in  Christ  be  sufficient  to  obtain  salvation.  While 
revolving  in  my  mind  the  pith  of  your  letter  and  its  vigour  I 

1  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  12-14.     The  letter  is  also  printed  by  Hofler. 


136  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

said  before  many  men  while  preaching — and  I  think  about 
ten  thousand  people  must  have  been  present — '  Behold, 
dearest  brethren,  what  interest  the  faithful  preachers  of  Christ 
in  foreign  parts  take  in  your  salvation,  they  who  are  ready  to 
pour  out  their  hearts,  if  they  can  but  maintain  you  in  the  law 
of  the  Lord  Christ,'  and  I  added:  '  Behold  our  dearest  brother 
Richard,  the  fellow-labourer  of  Master  John  Wycliffe  in  his 
evangelical  work,  has  written  to  you  so  comforting  a  letter 
that,  if  I  had  no  other  Scripture,  I  should  risk  my  life  for  this 
message  of  Christ,  and  would  do  so  with  His  help.'  The 
faithful  in  Christ  were  so  inflamed  by  your  message  that  they 
begged  me  to  translate  it  for  them  into  the  language  of  our 
country."  In  a  later  part  of  the  letter  Hus  begs  Wiche  to 
pray  for  him,  and  rejoices  that  through  his  (Wiche's)  efforts 
Bohemia  had  already  received  so  much  good  from  blessed 
(benedicta)  England.  Interesting  though  Hus's  letter  is,  it  is 
too  long  to  quote  in  its  entirety,  but  I  may  notice  a  passage  in 
which  he  refers  to  the  great  strength  which  the  movement  for 
church-reform  had  already  acquired  in  Bohemia.  He  writes: 
"  Know,  dearest  brother,  that  our  people  will  hear  nothing 
but  Holy  Scripture,  particularly  the  evangels  and  epistles,  and 
whenever  in  a  city  or  town,  cottage  or  castle,  a  preacher  of 
holy  truth  appears,  the  people  flock  together,  despising  the 
evilly-disposed  clergy."  It  is  evident  that  these  ten  thousand 
people  mentioned  by  Hus  could  not  find  room  in  the  Bethle- 
hem chapel;  no  doubt  many,  as  had  formerly  been  the  case 
during  the  sermons  of  Milic,  assembled  near  the  doors  of  the 
church,  trying  as  far  as  possible  to  catch  the  preacher's  words. 
On  the  next  occasion  on  which  Hus  came  into  contact  with 
Englishmen,  they  met  as  adversaries,  not  as  allies.  But 
before  dealing  with  this  incident,  I  must  return  to  the  litiga- 
tion between  Hus  and  the  archbishop,  which  was  still  pursuing 
its  weary  course.  The  reasons  are  not  far  to  seek.  Pope 
John  XXIII. ,  to  whose  mind  Hus's  austere  views  must  have 
appeared   even   more   objectionable   than    absurd,    naturally 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  137 

wished  at  almost  any  price  to  silence  a  preacher  of  unwelcome 
truths.  He  was  not,  however,  an  entirely  free  agent. 
Though  the  luxurious  and  free-living  clergy  of  Bohemia  in- 
stigated him  by  word  and  gift  to  accelerate  the  procedure 
against  the  Bohemian  reformer,  the  cunning  diavolo  car- 
dinale  knew  that  he  couldn't  risk  to  offend  King  Venceslas. 
The  election  of  Pope  Alexander  V.  had  not,  as  had  been 
thought,  ended  the  schism.  Benedict  XIII.  and  Gregory  XII. 
still  had  many  adherents,  and  among  those  of  the  last-named 
pontiff  still  remained  Sigismund,  King  of  the  Romans  and 
King  of  Hungary,  brother  of  King  Venceslas  and,  as  the 
latter  was  childless,  heir  to  the  Bohemian  throne.  In  1410 
Venceslas  had  by  the  death  of  the  Count  Palatine  Rupert 
been  freed  from  a  rival  claimant  to  the  crown  of  Germany, 
but  his  own  treacherous  younger  brother  Sigismund  had  been 
chosen  as  king  by  some  of  the  German  electors.  Others  had 
chosen  Jodocus  of  Moravia,  a  cousin  of  Venceslas,  as  their 
ruler.  It  appears  probable  that  after  the  death  of  Rupert 
Venceslas  would  again  have  been  universally  recognised  as 
King  of  the  Romans  had  it  not  been  that  the  protection  which 
he  afforded  to  Hus  was  generally  known.  The  ecclesiastical 
electors  thus  became  his  natural  enemies.  It  appeared 
possible  for  a  moment  that  he  would  play  the  part  which  a 
century  later  the  Elector  of  Saxony  played  with  regard  to  1 
Luther.  The  weaknesses  and  follies  of  Venceslas,  which  even/ 
those  who  know  how  greatly  the  king  has  been  maligned  must] 
regretfully  admit,  prevented  him  from  ever  playing  such  a  part.! 
The  Christian  world  was  thus  in  the  strange  position  of 
having  at  the  same  time  three  popes  and  three  Kings  of  the 
Romans.  Of  these  Sigismund  and  the  former  diavolo  car- 
dinal, now  Pope  John  XXIII.,  were  by  far  the  most  important, 
and  it  must  be  admitted  that  never  have  two  men  of  baser 
character  claimed  to  rule  over  the  Christian  world.1     While 

1  Dr.    Flajshans   (Mistr  Jan  Hus)    hardly  exaggerates   when    he   writes, 
"  Sigismund  was  cruel  and  sensual,  perjured  and  frivolous,  rapacious  and 


138  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

thus  the  political  situation  obliged  John  XXIII.  to  work 
cautiously  at  the  undoing  of  Hus,  the  latter  also  considered  it 
his  duty  to  continue  the  negotiations  with  the  Holy  See.  He 
had  begun  these  negotiations  on  the  advice  of  the  King  and 
Queen  of  Bohemia,  and  considering  himself,  as  he  did  to  the 
end  of  his  life,  a  true  member  of  the  Catholic  Church,  he  believed 
that  he  had  the  right  of  placing  his  views  before  the  papal 
court. 

King  Venceslas  was  greatly  irritated  because  Archbishop 
Zbynek  had  by  order  of  the  pope  caused  the  decree  pronounc- 
ing the  ban  against  Hus  to  be  read  publicly  in  the  churches  of 
Prague.  The  king's  principle  during  the  protracted  disputes 
had  been  to  maintain  that  the  Bohemian  Church  should  settle 
its  own  differences  within  the  country,  and  that  the  interven- 
tion of  foreigners  should  be  eliminated  as  far  as  possible.  To 
this  principle  Venceslas  adhered  with  a  tenacity  that  was 
rare  with  him.  He  had  shortly  after  the  burning  of  Wy cliff e's 
works  requested  the  archbishop  to  refund  the  value  of  these 
books  to  those  who  had  been  deprived  of  them.  Archbishop 
Zbynek  had  tacitly  ignored  the  royal  command,  and  this  in- 
curred the  wrath  of  the  ever-irritable  king.  Venceslas  now 
decreed  that  certain  estates  and  houses  in  Prague  belonging 
to  the  archbishop  and  other  prelates  who  had  taken  part  in 
the  burning  of  Wycliffe's  books  should  be  confiscated,  and 
their  revenue  employed  to  indemnify  those  who  had  been 
deprived  of  their  books.  The  carrying  out  of  this  order  was 
entrusted  to  the  magistrates  of  the  towns  of  Prague.  Recent 
changes  in  the  constitution  of  these  municipalities  had  given 
the  national  party  a  majority  in  them,  and  the  king's  orders 
were  immediately  obeyed.  The  archbishop,  who  had  again 
retired  to  his  castle  of  Roudnice  on  May  2,  141 1,  sent  a  letter 

dissolute,  fierce  and  pusillanimous,  a  bye-word  and  object  of  horror  to  the 
Bohemians,  hated  and  despised  by  the  Germans,  a  warning  to  all  rulers. 
His  companion  John  XXIII.,  lewd  and  murderous,  a  simonist  and  an  infidel, 
was  a  true  comrade  for  Sigismund  in  all  evil  deeds,  a  warning  lesson  to  all 
future  popes." 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION 


T39 


to  the  city  magistrates,  protesting  strongly  against  these 
confiscations,  and  stating  that  the  citizens  had  forcibly 
possessed  themselves  of  church  property.  A  term  of  three 
days  was  given  them  within  which  they  were  to  restore  the 
confiscated  property  to  the  church.  As  no  notice  was  taken 
of  this  letter  the  archbishop  pronounced  the  sentence  of  ex- 
communication on  all  the  magistrates  and  town-officials — 
fifty  persons  in  all — who  had  taken  part  in  the  execution  of 
the  royal  order.  As  all  these  persons  belonged  to  the  national 
or  reform  party,  no  notice  was  taken  of  the  archbishop's 
decree.  Zbynek  then  had  recourse  to  an  extreme  step  which 
he  had  already  taken  once  two  years  before.  He  proclaimed 
the  interdict  over  the  town  of  Prague  and  its  immediate 
neighbourhood.  As  two  years  previously,  this  measure  failed 
to  cause  the  panic  which  in  mediaeval  times  was  generally 
connected  with  the  interdict;  perhaps  its  short  duration 
prevented  its  producing  the  usual  effect.  Hus  and  the  other 
priests  favourable  to  church-reform  continued  to  hold  religious 
services  and  to  preach  as  usual.  The  disputations  at  the 
university  proceeded  in  the  usual  manner.  It  is  a  proof  of 
the  slight  importance  which  was  attached  to  the  interdict  on 
this  occasion  that  we  find  Hus  and  his  friends  occupied  in 
drawing  up  the  regulations  for  a  college  of  students  that  was 
to  be  founded  in  connection  with  the  Bethlehem  chapel.  A 
college  for  students  had  in  1397  been  founded  by  Queen 
Hedwiga  of  Poland,  but  of  the  curators  whom  she  had  then 
appointed  only  Kriz — known  to  us  as  the  founder  of  the 
Bethlehem  chapel — was  then  alive.  He  also  was  of  a  very 
advanced  age  and  he  did  not  live  to  hear  of  the  bitter,  but 
glorious  death  of  his  old  friend  Hus.  The  latter  advised  Kriz 
to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  render  possible  the  continuation 
of  this  richly  endowed  foundation,  which  was  then  housed  in 
the  "  Jerusalem "  buildings  sanctified  by  the  memory  of 
Milic.  It  was  arranged  that  eleven  students  of  theology, 
belonging  to  the  Bohemian  nationality,  should  there  receive 


i4o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

a  free  education.  The  college  naturally  became  a  centre  for 
the  friends  of  church-reform,  and  it  was  understood  that  the 
preachers  of  the  Bethlehem  chapel  should  be  chosen  from  its 
members.  Venceslas  Kriz,  son  of  the  founder  of  Bethlehem, 
appears  to  have  nominated  the  first  scholars  of  the  reorganised 
college.  We  find  among  them  the  name  of  Peter  of  Mlade- 
novic,  the  disciple  and  biographer  of  Hus,  whose  account  of 
the  last  sufferings  and  death  of  his  master  has  been  translated 
into  many  languages  and  read  by  countless  people  to  whom 
the  name  of  Mladenovic  is  unknown. 

While  the  more  pious  and  enthusiastic  priests  drew  closer 
.  to  Hus  and  closer  to  each  other,  some  more  worldly  members 
■  of  the  clergy  of  Prague  began  to  desert  Hus — often  to  become 
afterwards  his  most  venomous  enemies.  Some  of  these  men 
had  during  the  disputations  at  the  university  gladly  taken 
part  in  the  defence  of  Wycliffe's  teaching,  and  had  even  up- 
held some  opinions  that  Hus,  never  an  unconditional  adherent 
of  Wycliffe,  had  not  sanctioned.  These  men  were,  however, 
strongly  opposed  to  all  innovations  that  might  limit  the  liberty, 
or  rather  licence,  of  the  clergy  of  Prague.  Besides  the  spy 
Protiva,  always  an  opponent  of  Hus,  Stanislas  of  Znoymo  and 
Stephen  Palec,  formerly  a  friend  of  the  Bohemian  reformer, 
now  became  his  bitter  enemies.  Palec  stated  in  a  letter *  that 
the  writings  of  Wycliffe  were  indeed  delightful,  but  that  he 
very  much  doubted  whether  any  of  the  Bohemian  priests 
would  suffer  death  for  the  truth.  He  preferred,  he  said,  a 
faith  which  would  allow  him  to  go  safely  anywhere.  This 
mean  letter,  as  Mr.  Wratislaw  rightly  calls  it,  was  no  doubt 
the  result  of  the  great  physical  fear  which  Palec  had  felt  when 
detained  at  Bologna.  This  does  not,  however,  excuse  the 
animosity  and  rancour  with  which  he  pursued  those  whose 
lofty  thoughts  raised  them  to  a  height  to  which  his  mean 
and  cowardly  nature  could  not  attain.  All  personal  relations 
between  Hus  and  Palec  ceased  at  this  period,  and  Hus  ex- 

1  Printed  in  the  late  Rev.  A.  H.  Wratislaw's  John  Hus,  p.  181. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  141 

pressed  his  opinion  in  the  often-quoted  words:  Palec  is  my 
friend ;  truth  is  my  friend ;  both  being  friends,  it  is  saintly  to 
give  preference  to  truth. 

Archbishop  Zbynek  was  far  too  shrewd  a  man  to  think 
that  supporters  such  as  Protiva,  Palec,  and  Michael,  sur- 
named  de  causis,  a  German  priest  of  evil  repute,  notorious  as 
an  enemy  of  Hus,  would  avail  him  in  his  struggle  with  Ven- 
ceslas.  He  knew  that  he  had  in  the  king  a  dangerous  enemy. 
Venceslas  was  deeply  impressed  by  the  dangerously  great 
power  of  the  clergy,  in  whose  hands  a  third  part  of  the  soil 
of  Bohemia  then  was.  Zbynek  therefore  decided  to  make 
his  peace  with  the  king.  Though  there  is  hardly  sufficient 
evidence  to  allow  a  positive  affirmation,  it  is  at  least  very 
probable  that  the  astute  diavolo  cardinale  advised  Zbynek  in 
this  sense.  Jodocus  of  Moravia  had  died  very  shortly  after 
his  election  as  king.  There  therefore  remained  as  claimants 
to  the  throne  only  the  brothers  Venceslas  and  Sigismund. 
John  XXIII.  could  not  risk  offending  either  of  these  princes 
before  he  had  silenced  the  popes  Gregory  and  Benedict — a 
thing  he  hoped  shortly  to  do.  Through  the  mediation  of 
Rudolph,  Duke  of  Saxony,  and  with  the  assent  of  several 
foreign  dignitaries  who  were  then  in  Prague,  it  was  agreed  that 
the  whole  dispute  between  Hus  and  the  archbishop  should  be 
settled  by  arbitration.  The  king  was  himself  to  act  as  arbi- 
trator, and  was  to  have  as  his  assistants  Duke  Rudolph  of 
Saxony,  Stibor  Count  of  Transylvania,  who  was  then  at 
Prague,  and  Lacek  of  Kravar,  formerly  master  of  ceremonies 
to  Venceslas,  but  now  acting  as  his  representative  ("  mar- 
grave ")  in  Moravia.  Both  parties  accepted  this  agreement, 
which  practically  conferred  on  Venceslas  unlimited  power  to 
act  as  arbitrator.  Hus  thought  it  well  that  the  university 
should  be  consulted  on  the  matter,  and  that  body  gave  its  full 
assent,  stipulating  only  that  the  king's  decision  alone  should 
be  absolute,  in  case  the  appointed  councillors  should  have  left 
Prague  before  judgment  had  been  given.     At  the  same  time, 


I 


142  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

the  archbishop  assembled  numerous  prelates  in  his  palace  in 
the  Mala  Strana1  and  informed  them  that  he  had  accepted 
the  arbitration  of  the  king.  Venceslas  acted  with  great 
prudence  in  this  matter.  Besides  the  coadjutors  who  had 
already  been  appointed,  he  consulted  also  several  other  digni- 
taries, both  laymen  and  priests.  The  result  of  their  delibera- 
tions was,  on  July  6,  1411,  formulated  in  an  agreement  which 
under  more  favourable  circumstances  might  have  restored  to 
s  Bohemia  the  peace  which  that  country  so  urgently  required. 
It  was  decided  that  the  archbishop  should  submit  to  the  king 
as  his  lord  and  then  become  reconciled  to  him.  He  was  also 
to  write  to  the  pope  stating  that  he  knew  of  no  heresies  in  the 
Bohemian  kingdom,  but  only  of  dissensions  between  himself 
and  Hus,  a  matter  regarding  which  the  king  was  endeavouring 
to  mediate.  The  archbishop  was  also  to  beg  the  pope  to 
absolve  those  against  whom  he  had  pronounced  the  sentence 
of  excommunication,  and  Zbynek  was  himself  to  absolve  those 
on  whom  he  had  pronounced  that  sentence  and  also  to  revoke 
the  interdict  on  the  city  of  Prague.  Both  parties  were  to 
desist  from  the  lawsuits  which  they  had  begun  at  the  papal 
courts,  and  recall  their  representatives  there.  The  king  was 
to  take  council  of  the  bishops,  doctors,  prelates,  temporal 
princes,  nobles,  and  squires 2  concerning  the  existence  of  heresies 
or  vices  among  either  laymen  or  priests,  and  eventually  on  the 
advice  of  his  spiritual  and  temporal  councillors  to  extirpate 
and  punish  such  offences.  The  revenues  and  annuities  which 
had  been  taken  from  the  priests  were  to  be  returned  to  them, 
and  those  priests  who  had  been  imprisoned  were  to  be  released. 
All  the  rights  and  privileges  previously  possessed  by  the 
clergy,  the  university,  the  lords  and  squires  were  guaranteed 
to  them,  and  it  was  stipulated  that  the  church  should  not 
attempt  to  encroach  on  the  temporal  power.     It  was  finally 

1  The  "  small  quarter  "  of  Prague,  situated  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Vltava 
(Moldau)  river. 

-  In  Bohemian,  "  zeman."  The  "  zeman  "  may  be  described  as  a  member 
of  the  lesser  nobility  or  country  gentry. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  143 

declared  by  the  archbishop  that  he  had  believed  that  the 
municipalities  had  on  their  own  authority,  and  not  by  order 
of  the  king,  seized  church  property.  Having  now  been  in- 
formed of  the  contrary,  he  wished  to  raise  no  further  com- 
plaints against  the  citizens.1 

This  sensible  and  business-like  document,  which  certainly- 
contained  the  germ  of  a  permanent  agreement,  has  been  little 
noticed  by  historians.  It  is  scarcely  uncharitable  to  suggest 
that  this  silence  is  due  to  the  blind  disparagement  of  King 
Venceslas  which  we  find  in  all  the  works  of  Roman  Catholic 
writers  as  well  as  in  those  of  some  German  Protestants.  The 
statement  contained  in  this  document  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  rulers  to  suppress  vices  and  heresies  foreshadows  the 
Hussite  period,  where  we  find  similar  enactments  in  the  Articles 
of  Prague,  the  compacts,  and  elsewhere.  At  the  time  when 
the  agreement  mentioned  above  was  drawn  up,  it  was  also 
settled  that  Archbishop  Zbynek  should  send  to  Pope  John 
XXIII.  a  letter  interceding  for  Hus.  A  draft  of  such  a  letter 
was  actually  drawn  up,  but  the  letter  was  never  sent.  This 
caused  renewed  bitterness.  The  archbishop  appeared  to  act 
in  a  half-hearted  manner,  and  Venceslas,  impatient  by  nature, 
soon  again  became  incensed  against  the  ecclesiastical  digni- 
taries of  Bohemia.  Hus  meanwhile,  relying  on  his  firm  convic- 
tion that  he  had  spoken  and  written  nothing  contrary  to  the 
true  Catholic  faith,  again  wrote  to  Pope  John.  He  again 
affirmed  that  he  was  a  true  Catholic  and  denied  ever  having 
stated  that  the  material  substance  of  bread  remained  in  the 
sacrament  after  communion  or  having  said  that  a  priest  in 
the  state  of  mortal  sin  could  not  administer  the  sacraments 
validly.  These  accusations  had  been  frequently  raised  by 
Palec  and  Michael  de  causis,  who  believed  or  pretended  to 
believe  that  if  they  proved  that  any  book  of  Wycliffe  which 
Hus  admitted  to  have  read  contained  a  statement  contrary 
to  the  teaching  of  the  church,  this  was  a  sufficient  proof  that 

1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii.  pp.  494-495. 


144  THE  LIFE  0F  J0HN  HUS 

Hus  himself  was  a  heretic.  Hus  read  this  letter  to  the  as- 
sembled members  of  the  university,  who  entirely  approved  of 
it,  and  it  was  decided  that  as  a  token  of  this  approbation 
the  seal  of  the  university  should  be  affixed  to  the  letter. 
It  is  probable  that  about  this  time  Venceslas  also  wrote  to 
Pope  John  XXIII.  again  praising  Hus  and  interceding  for 
him. 

The  hope  for  a  peaceful  settlement  disappeared  almost 
|  as  rapidly  as  it  had  arisen.  The  archbishop  soon  considered 
that  he  had  new  causes  to  complain  of  the  king  and  his 
courtiers.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  Venceslas  was  during 
his  whole  life  hostile  to  the  higher  clergy  of  Bohemia,  though 
his  attitude  towards  Hus  proves  that  he  honoured  and 
respected  a  pious  and  virtuous  priest.  Zbynek  complained 
that  some  of  the  royal  courtiers  had  interfered  with  his  archi- 
episcopal  rights  and  demanded  an  audience  to  bring  his  griev- 
ances before  the  king.  On  his  refusal  Zbynek  again  declared 
that  he  was  no  longer  safe  at  Prague,  and  left  the  city  only  a 
few  weeks  after  the  agreement  had  been  made.  The  arch- 
bishop first  proceeded  to  Litomysl,  the  residence  of  John, 
surnamed  the  "  iron,"  bishop  of  the  city.  The  iron  bishop 
was  known  as  a  bitter  enemy  of  King  Venceslas  and  a 
notorious  simonist.  He  was  naturally  and  from  selfish  reasons 
a  strong  opponent  of  church  -  reform.  The  iron  bishop 
played  a  considerable  part  in  the  life  of  Hus.  It  was  at  his 
instigation  that  the  wealthy  Bohemian  priests  at  the  time  of 
Hus's  departure  for  Constance  collected  a  large  sum  of  money 
to  procure  evidence  against  him.  Hus  always  believed  that 
the  Bishop  of  Litomysl,  with  the  spies  and  informers  who 
were  in  his  pay,  contributed  largely  to  his  condemnation  at 
Constance.  In  the  Hussite  wars  the  iron  bishop  became 
notorious  through  his  excessive  cruelty  and,  as  the  Hussite 
leaders  were  but  too  ready  to  follow  his  example,  the  Bishop 
of  Litomysl  bears  no  slight  responsibility  for  the  cruelty  and 
bitterness,    exceptional    even    among    religious    wars,    which 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  145 

marks  the  warfare  between  the  Bohemians  and  the  so- 
called  crusaders.  The  counsels  of  the  iron  bishop  were  not, 
therefore,  likely  to  have  a  conciliatory  effect  on  Zbynek.  He 
addressed  from  Litomysl  a  letter  to  King  Venceslas  contain- 
ing many  complaints,  of  which  some  were  perhaps  justified, 
many  certainly  unfounded.  He  also  stated  that  he  was  going 
to  visit  King  Sigismund  of  Hungary,  the  treacherous  younger 
brother  of  Venceslas,  and  even  threatened  to  induce  Sigis- 
mund, who  always  coveted  his  brother's  kingdom,  to  invade 
Bohemia.  These  plots  or  threats  were  not  destined  to  lead  to 
any  result.  Archbishop  Zbynek  died  at  Presburg  on  Septem- 
ber 28,  141 1,  while  on  his  way  to  Sigismund's  court.  Thus 
Archbishop  Zbynek,  a  man  who  had  ascended  the  archi- 
episcopal  throne  of  Prague  with  the  best  intentions,  ended  his 
life  almost  as  a  traitor  to  his  country  and  his  king.  A  man  of 
little  intelligence  and  less  learning,  he  was  in  spite  of  his  good 
qualities  quite  unfitted  for  the  position  in  which  he  was  placed 
at  a  most  difficult  moment.  Hus,  mindful  of  his  good  inten- 
tions and  of  the  kindness  once  shown  to  him  by  Zbynek,  ex- 
pressed great  sorrow  when  he  heard  of  the  archbishop's  death.' 
Zbynek's  death  was  followed  by  a  brief  moment  of  calm, 
preceding  the  storm,  greater  than  all  former  ones,  that  was 
shortly  to  break  out.  Only  one  incident  belonging  to  this, 
period  is  recorded  by  the  contemporary  chroniclers,  and  has 
ever  since  found  its  way  into  all  works  dealing  with  Hus, 
though  it  had  little  influence  on  the  main  current  of  the  events. 
Shortly  after  Zbynek  had  left  Prague  two  English  envoys 
arrived  there  also  on  their  way  to  Hungary,  where  they  had 
a  diplomatic  mission.  These  men  were  Sir  Hartung  van  Clux,1 
one  of  the  most  trusted  councillors  of  Henry  IV.  and  of  his 
son,  and  John  Stokes,  licentiate  of  Cambridge.  The  object 
of  their  mission  was  to  conclude  an  alliance  between  England 

1  The  un-English  name  of  this  English  agent  has  puzzled  many  writers. 
Sir  Hartung  Clux  was  of  Flemish  origin,  and  a  trusted  agent  of  King  Henry 
IV.  and  Henry  V.  The  latter  conferred  on  him  the  Order  of  the  Garter. 
(See  Lenz,  Kdnig  Siqismund  tend  Heinrich  V.  von  England,  pp.  31  -37-) 

K 


146  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

and  Sigismund,  King  of  Hungary.  The  news  of  the  arrival  of 
the  Englishmen  soon  reached  the  hospitable  citizens  of  Prague 
and  the  Englishmen  were  invited  to  a  banquet  by  the  rector  of 
the  university.  Sir  Hartung,  probably  aware  of  the  theological 
strife  then  raging  at  the  university,  politely  declined  the  in- 
vitation, but  when  John  Stokes,  evidently  a  novice  in  matters 
of  diplomacy,  was  questioned  as  to  the  cause  of  the  refusal,  he 
plunged  boldly  into  the  Wycliffe  controversy.  He  publicly 
declared  that  whoever  should  read  the  works  of  Master  John 
Wycliffe,  or  should  study  them,  even  if  he  had  the  best  in- 
tentions and  the  firmest  faith,  must  in  course  of  time  become 
involved  in  heresy.  Hus,  always  zealous  for  what  he  believed 
to  be  truth,  traversed  Stokes's  foolish  statement  and  chal- 
lenged him  to  a  public  disputation  at  the  university  in  the 
manner  then  customary.  This  challenge  Stokes  declined, 
alleging  that  he  had  come  to  Bohemia  on  diplomatic  business, 
being  on  his  way  to  the  court  of  King  Sigismund.  Charac- 
teristically, Stokes,  who  was  either  very  little  versed  in  the 
ways  of  diplomacy,  or  irritated  by  the  "  Lollard  "  movement 
which,  he  thought,  he  had  discovered  in  Prague,  described  in 
his  letter  King  Sigismund  as  "  Dei  gratia  regem  Ungariae,  nee 
non  ad  regem  Romanorum  electum  unicum."  Venceslas 
still  claimed  to  be  King  of  the  Romans,  and  the  words  of 
Stokes  were  bound  to  give  grave  offence  to  the  King  of 
Bohemia  and  his  court.  Though  declining  the  challenge  for 
the  moment,  Stokes,  however,  made  the  somewhat  suspicious 
suggestion  that  a  disputation  should  take  place  later  either  in 
Paris  or  at  the  papal  court.  It  was  probable  in  the  former, 
and  certain  in  the  latter  case  that  a  Bohemian  who  attempted 
to  uphold  Wycliffe's  views  there  would  never  have  returned 
:  to  his  own  country.  Stokes,  belonging  to  the  period  of  re- 
action against  Lollardism  in  England,  appears  to  have  been  a 
thorough  ultramontane,  if  we  can  apply  the  word  to  so  remote 
a  period.  At  Constance  he  attacked  Hus  and  wished  to  pro- 
duce as  evidence  against  him  a  book  that  he  had  found  at 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  147 

Prague,  which,  he  said,  contained  the  views  of  the  Lollards 
and  which,  he  had  been  told,  might  have  been  written  by  Hus. 
The  book,  as  was  proved,  had  not  been  written  by  Hus,  nor  had 
he  had  any  part  in  it.  Though  Hus  was  not  able  to  enter  into 
a  disputation  with  Stokes,  he  yet  thought  it  his  duty  to  reply 
to  the  statement  which  Stokes  had  made.  In  a  speech,  which 
has  been  preserved,  he  justly  stigmatised  the  absurdity  of  those 
who  wished  to  declare  heretics  all  who  had  read  Wycliffe's 
books.  He  acutely  pointed  out  that  Wycliffe  had  been  hated 
by  many,  and  particularly  by  the  higher  clergy,  because  he 
had  blamed  their  vices  and  admonished  them  to  lead  honest 
and  blameless  lives. 

Hus's  dispute  with  Stokes  was  no  doubt  soon  forgotten  in 
view  of  the  weighty  events  that  followed  at  a  short  interval. 
Through  the  death  of  Zbynek  the  important  and  valuable 
archiepiscopal  see  of  Prague  had  become  vacant.  Candidates 
were  numerous,  and  at  a  period  when  simony  was  almost 
universal  in  the  Roman  Church,  bribery  was  rampant.  The 
election  at  first  proceeded  slowly,  and  fears  were  expressed 
that  Baldassare  Cossa  might  appoint  a  new  archbishop. 
The  king  therefore  requested  the  canons  to  come  to  a  decision, 
and  of  the  twenty-four  candidates  Albert  of  Unicov,  physician 
to  the  king,  was  on  October  29,  141 1,  unanimously  chosen 
as  archbishop.  A  contemporary  chronicler  writes:1  "After 
him  (Zbynek),  Albik  (Albert)  a  great  master  of  the  medical 
sciences  became  archbishop.  He  was  a  German  by  birth, 
born  at  Unicov.  The  people  said  that  he  had  bought  the 
archbishopric,  for  he  had  much  money.  He  was,  however,  a 
very  niggardly  and  miserly  German,  and  would  not  have  any 
knights  or  pages  around  him,  that  he  might  not  be  obliged  to 
give  them  money."  The  well-meaning  king,  to  whose  in- 
fluence the  election  of  his  former  court-physician  was  largely 
due,  no  doubt  sincerely  believed  that  Albert  of  Unicov  would 
be  able  to  establish  a  quieter  condition  in  Bohemia.     The  new 

1  Ancient  Bohemian  Chroniclers,  vol.  iii.  p.  14. 


i48  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

archbishop  shared  the  king's  desire  for  tranquillity,  and 
perhaps  under  more  favourable  conditions  their  efforts  might 
have  been  successful.  Albik  or  Albert  of  Unicov,  then  about 
fifty-four  years  of  age,  could  already  look  back  on  a  long 
career.  He  had  begun  life  as  a  law-student  at  Prague,  and 
had  obtained  academic  honours.  As  was  often  the  custom  of 
scholars  at  that  period,  he  afterwards  travelled  for  a  consider- 
able period.  He  spent  some  time  at  the  University  of  Padua, 
where  he  obtained  the  degree  of  doctor  of  law.  Somewhat 
later  he  applied  himself  to  the  study  of  medicine  and  acquired 
the  reputation  of  being  one  of  the  greatest  physicians  of  his 
time.  He  had  recently  become  a  widower,  was  the  father  of 
several  children,  and  had  taken  vows  shortly  after  the  death  of 
his  wife.  He  had  through  his  medical  practice  acquired  a 
very  large  fortune,  and  he  accepted  the  dignity  of  archbishop 
mainly  by  wish  of  the  king,  with  whom  he  was  on  terms  of 
intimacy.  The  reference  in  the  chronicle  quoted  above  to 
the  large  sum  Albik  had  spent  to  become  archbishop  refers  to 
a  very  large  gift  which  he  made  to  Pope  John  XXIII.  That 
pontiff,  as  Dr.  Tomek  writes,  would  without  large  payment 
never  have  renounced  his  claim  to  appoint  a  successor  to 
Archbishop  Zbynek.  That  the  claim  of  Albik  prevailed  over 
even  that  of  the  rich  and  unscrupulous  Bishop  of  Litomysl, 
who  was  also  a  candidate,  is  probably  not  due  to  his  greater 
munificence.  It  is  an  appalling  proof  of  the  universal 
prevalence  of  simony  at  this  period  that  the  contemporary 
chroniclers  always  allude  to  bribery  as  having  decided  elec- 
tions among  the  clergy,  and  hardly  seem  to  take  other  motives 
into  account.  In  the  present  case  it  is,  however,  very  probable 
that  King  Venceslas  may  have  used  his  great  influence  to 
prevent  the  election  of  his  bitter  enemy,  John  "  the  iron,"  to 
the  archbishopric  of  Prague. 

It  was  natural  to  hope  that  the  election  of  Albik,  an  elderly, 
conciliatory,  opulent,  well-intentioned  man,  whose  home  life 
was  irreproachable,  would  at  least  cause  a  respite  in  the  theo- 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  149 

logical  strife  which  was  absorbing  all  interest  in  Bohemia. 
Events  in  distant  Italy  brought  on  a  crisis  which  was  more 
serious  than  any  of  the  former  disturbances  in  Bohemia.  It 
has  already  been  mentioned l  that,  immediately  after  his 
election  to  the  papal  throne,  John  XXIII.  strove  with  his 
entire  indomitable  energy  to  carve  out  for  the  papacy,  or 
rather,  perhaps,  for  himself,  a  temporal  dominion  in  Italy. 
Here,  however,  the  diavolo  cardinale  found  a  dangerous 
antagonist  in  Ladislas,  King  of  Naples,  an  adventurer  of  a 
type  somewhat  similar  to  his  own.  Claiming  to  uphold  the 
cause  of  Pope  Gregory  XII.,  Ladislas  invaded  the  papal  states 
and  menaced  Rome,  where  Pope  John  had  then  established 
his  residence.  The  pope  therefore  decided  to  proclaim  a 
crusade  against  his  Italian  rival.  The  name  of  crusade,  so 
venerable  at  its  origin,  had  long  been  perverted  to  give  a  false 
impression  of  sanctity  to  very  unholy  and  worldly  warfare 
waged  by  ambitious  popes  against  temporal  rulers.  It  was  only 
the  complete  and  ignominious  failure  of  the  so-called  crusades 
against  Bohemia  which  caused  the  name  to  fall  into  oblivion. 
Bohemia  had  in  earlier  days,  because  of  its  geographical 
position,  not  greatly  attracted  the  papal  tax-gatherers.  There 
was,  however,  no  hope  that  such  an  exemption  would  continue 
at  a  time  when  the  papal  crown  was  claimed  by  three  rival 
pontiffs,  each  of  whom  could  only  rely  on  the  financial  support 
of  a  comparatively  limited  extent  of  country.  On  December 
2,  1411,  a  decree  of  John  XXIII.  declared  Pope  Gregory  XII. 
and  his  ally  Ladislas,  King  of  Naples,  to  be  heretics,  and 
granted  a  plenary  indulgence  to  all  who  took  part  in  the  war 
against  Ladislas  or  contributed  to  the  expenses  of  the  cam- 
paign. It  has  often  been  stated  that  this  was  at  that  period  a 
very  usual  occurrence,  and  that  it  is  surprising  that  Hus  should 
have  raised  objections  to  such  a  decree.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  case  in  other  countries,  in  Bohemia  such  proceedings 
were  exceptional.     This  fact,  unnoticed  by  foreign  writers,  is 

1  See  p.  98. 


i5o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

duly  recorded  by  the  Bohemian  historians.  The  only  pre- 
cedent for  the  public  sale  of  indulgences  had  occurred  in  the 
year  1393.  "  In  Bohemia,"  Professor  Tomek  writes,  "  the 
unhappy  recollection  of  the  sale  of  indulgences  in  the  year  of 
grace  1393  was  still  vivid,  and  the  archiepiscopal  consistory 
thought  it  necessary  to  publish  special  regulations  to  prevent 
the  repetition  of  the  more  crying  abuses  that  had  then  oc- 
curred." Archbishop  Albik  also  strictly  prohibited  the  taxing 
of  the  people  in  the  confessional,  that  is  to  say,  their  being  told 
during  confession  how  much  they  would,  according  to  their 
rank  and  fortune,  have  to  pay  for  an  indulgence — a  custom 
that  had  been  general  in  1393. 

The  orders  given  by  Archbishop  Albik  and  the  consistory 
certainly  tended  to  avoid  all  scandal  as  far  as  possible.  This 
was  naturally  to  be  feared  in  a  city  where  the  teaching  of 
Hus  and  his  forerunners  had  developed  a  somewhat  puritanic 
spirit.  The  papal  representative,  however,  who  now  arrived 
at  Prague,  Venceslas  Tiem,  Dean  of  Passau,  was  utterly  unfit 
for  the  difficult  task  which  he  had  undertaken.  His  behaviour, 
like  that  of  Texel  a  century  later,  was  bound  to  cause  trouble. 
Tiem  took  little  notice  of  the  restrictions  that  had  been  im- 
posed on  him.  He  carried  on  his  traffic  in  divine  indulgences 
in  the  manner  which  he  believed  would  give  him  the  largest 
profit  and  enable  him  to  send  the  largest  sums  to  Italy.  To 
simplify  matters,  he  began  to  farm  out  archdeaconries,  deacon- 
ries,  and  even  single  churches  to  priests  who,  acting  as  con- 
tractors, had  to  consign  to  him  a  fixed  sum,  while  they  were 
at  liberty  to  obtain  as  great  a  profit  as  they  could  by  the  sale 
of  the  indulgences.  "  Naturally,  worthy  priests  were  not 
suitable  for  such  an  unholy  trade,  and  the  business  thus  fell 
into  the  hands  of  priests  who  were  misers  or  gamblers,  lived 
in  concubinage,  or  practised  other  vices  of  the  period.  These 
men  bargained  shamelessly  with  the  faithful  in  the  confes- 
sionals and  committed  infamous  actions  of  every  description."  1 

1  Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii.  pp.  508-509. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  151 

The  principal  places  of  sale  in  Prague,  the  profits  of  which 
Tiem  had  reserved  for  himself,  were  the  three  most  important 
churches  of  the  city,  the  church  on  the  Vysehrad,  the  Tyn 
church  in  the  old  town,  and  St.  Vitus's  cathedral  on  the 
Hradcany.  In  the  last-named  church  the  box  in  which  the 
offerings  were  to  be  deposited  was  placed  near  the  altar  of  St. 
Vitus,  where  the  people  mostly  congregated. 

It  was  impossible  that  this  public  simony  should  not 
arouse  discontent  and  indignation  among  the  citizens  of 
Prague.  One  of  the  principal  subjects  of  the  sermons  of  the 
priests  who  upheld  church-reform  had  for  some  time  been  the 
abuse  of  indulgences.  Tiem  had  arrived  at  Prague  in  May, 
1412,  and  early  in  June  Hus  invited  all  members  of  the  univer- 
sity to  take  part  in  a  disputation  that  was  to  be  held  in  the 
large  hall  of  the  Carolinum  college  on  June  17.  The  question 
to  be  discussed  was :  Whether  it  was  permissible  and  expedient 
according  to  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ,  (whether  it  was)  to  the 
glory  of  God,  the  salvation  of  the  Christian  people,  that  the 
bulls  of  the  pope  concerning  the  raising  the  cross  against 
Ladislas,  King  of  Apulia,  and  his  accomplices  be  commended 
to  the  faithful  in  Christ?"1  The  meeting  was  somewhat 
stormy,  and  several  among  the  theologians,  though  not  entirely 
approving  of  the  sale  of  indulgences  as  it  was  carried  on  in 
Prague,  yet  declared  that  they  would  not  oppose  the  papal 
decree.  Stanislas  of  Znoymo  and  Stephen  Palec  spoke  in 
favour  of  blind  submission  to  all  decisions  of  the  pope.  Hus 
spoke  quietly  and  firmly;  he  relied  mainly  on  biblical  quota- 
tions, and  maintained  that  Christ  alone,  not  priests,  could 
forgive  sins.  On  the  same  side  as  Hus  spoke  also  Master 
Jerome  of  Prague,  who  did  not,  however,  follow  the  example 
of  moderation  given  by  Hus.  His  speech,  perhaps  for  that 
reason,  obtained  greater  applause  from  the  young  students, 

1  The  words  of  the  Latin  original  ran  thus:  "  Utrum  secundum  legem 
Jesu  Christi  licet  et  expedit  pro  honore  Dei,  et  salute  populi  Cliristiani  et 
pro  commodo  regru  bullas  papae  de  erectione  crucis  contra  Ladislaum  regem 
Apuliae  et  suos  complices  Christi  ndelibus  approbare." 


i52  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

who  accompanied  him  back  to  his  dwelling  amidst  great 
enthusiasm.  The  moderation  displayed  by  Hus  during  the 
discussion  on  indulgences — a  subject  on  which  almost  every  one 
will  at  the  present  day  admit  that  he  was  right — is  all  the  more 
worthy  of  praise  because  almost  at  the  same  time  the  papal 
court  had  definitively  and  irrevocably  declared  itself  hostile 
to  his  views.  The  parish  priests,  always,  as  has  been  fre- 
quently noted,  bitter  enemies  of  church-reform  and  of  Hus  in 
particular,  thinking  that  the  new  archbishop  was  too  lenient, 
again  appealed  to  the  pope.  In  the  course  of  the  year  1412 
they  sent  to  the  papal  court  two  further  documents x  con- 
taining the  complaints  against  Hus  that  have  already  been 
enumerated.  They  added,  however,  to  their  old  grievances 
one  new  one,  stating  that  Hus  had  blamed  the  pope's  action 
in  granting  indulgences  and  remittance  of  sins  to  those  who 
took  part  in  the  warfare  against  "  Ladislas,  King  of  Apulia, 
and  Angelus  Correr,  who  with  sacrilegious  daring  calls  himself 
Gregory  XII."  Together  with  Hus  some  of  his  principal 
disciples  were  denounced  in  these  letters.  The  parish  priests 
were  this  time  more  successful  than  they  had  been  in  their 
former  attacks  on  Hus.  They  had  secured  a  wily  and  utterly 
unscrupulous  agent  at  the  papal  court.  This  was  one  Michael, 
a  German  of  Nemecky  Brod  (Deutschbrod),  some  time  parish 
priest  at  St.  Adalbertus's  in  Prague.2  Michael  was  afterwards 
by  Pope  John  XXIII.  appointed  advocate  in  matters  of  faith 
{procurator  de  causis  fidei),  and  was  therefore  generally  known 
as  "  Michael  de  causis."  His  reputation  was  of  the  worst. 
Neglecting  his  parish  duties,  he  endeavoured  to  obtain  money 
by  good  or  bad  means.3  He  offered  King  Venceslas  to  im- 
prove the  working  of  the  royal  mines  at  Jilov,  but  absconded 
with  the  money  that  had  been  entrusted  to  him.  He  fled  to 
the  pope  and  gained  a  living  by  acting  as  advocate  at  the 
papal  law-courts.     Through  the  influence  of  the  astute  Michael, 

1  Palacky,  Document  a,  pp.  457-461.  '  See  p.  141. 

3  Dr.  Flajshans,  Mistr  Jan  Hus,  p.  285. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  153 

Cardinal  Brancaccio  was  deprived  of  the  direction  of  the 
Bohemian  affairs  that  had  recently  been  entrusted  to  him. 
His  successor,  Cardinal  Peter  of  St.  Angelo,  acted  entirely 
according  to  the  wishes  of  the  Bohemian  enemies  of  church- 
reform.  The  representatives  of  Hus  at  the  papal  court  were 
declared  to  be  heretics;  some  were  imprisoned,  while  others 
succeeded  in  escaping  to  Prague.  The  cause  of  Hus  at  the 
papal  courts  was  definitively  lost  and  a  decisive  condemnatory 
judgment  against  him  was  being  prepared.  Momentous 
events,  however,  occurred  in  Prague  before  the  judgment 
became  known  there. 

The  attempt  to  establish  at  Prague  the  sale  of  indulgences 
in  a  manner  that  was  particularly  repulsive  to  the  citizens 
had  produced  a  state  of  feverish  excitement.  The  Germans 
and  Romanist  partisans  declared  that  they  would  burn  the 
Bethlehem  chapel  and  murder  all  heretics.  Among  the 
friends  of  church-reform  the  more  frivolous  and  unreflecting 
men  were  led  astray  and  organised  demonstrations  that  must 
have  been  very  painful  to  the  truly  pious  mind  of  Hus. 
Jerome  was  still  in  Prague,  and  Hus,  perhaps  better  acquainted 
with  his  eloquence  and  learning  than  with  his  many  faults, 
did  not  attempt  to  exercise  sufficient  restraint  over  him.  It 
was,  therefore,  undoubtedly  with  the  connivance  of  Jerome 
that  one  of  King  Venceslas's  favourite  courtiers,  Lord  Vok  of 
VValdstein,  organised  a  grotesque  procession  of  which  all 
sober-minded  citizens  disapproved.  It  is  probable  that  King 
Venceslas,  who  was  not  at  Prague  on  the  day  the  procession 
took  place,  was  utterly  unaware  of  the  intended  folly  of  his 
courtier,  but  when  after  the  death  of  Hus  and  the  movement 
of  universal  fury  which  the  news  of  it  caused  in  Bohemia,  the 
Council  of  Constance  wished  to  attack  the  King  of  Bohemia, 
he  was  accused  of  complicity.1     It  is  certain  that  on  June  24 

1  This  is  stated  in  the  acts  of  accusation  against  the  King  and  Queen  of 
Bohemia  (Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  638-642).  These  acts  contain  many- 
untruthful  statements. 


154  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

a  very  strange  procession  left  the  Mala  Strana  and  paraded 
the  streets.  In  an  open  carriage  stood  a  young  student  in 
the  attire  of  a  prostitute.1  He  had  round  his  neck  and  arms 
silver  bells  which  rang  continuously,  and  in  front  of  him  was 
placed  a  large  sheet  of  paper  to  which  were  attached  leaden 
seals,  giving  it  the  appearance  of  a  papal  bull.  Behind  the 
carriage  followed  a  crowd  of  students  led  by  Waldstein.  As 
is  always  the  case  on  such  occasions  in  large  towns,  a  vast  and 
noisy  crowd  joined  the  procession.  Many  carried  sticks  and 
even  swords.  The  procession  wended  its  way  through  the 
streets  of  the  old  town  and  the  market-place  to  the  new  town, 
where  it  stopped  at  the  present  Karlovo  namesti  (Charles's 
vSquare).  Here  the  documents  imitating  papal  bulls  were 
placed  under  an  improvised  gallows  and  burnt  amidst  loud 
applause  of  the  crowd.  The  foolish  freak  was  obviously  in- 
tended as  a  parody  of  the  burning  of  Wycliffe's  works  by  the 
archbishop.  This  recalling  of  the  destruction  of  the  writings 
of  Wycliffe  contributed  to  increase  the  public  excitement. 
The  opposition  to  the  sale  of  indulgences  increased,  and  those 
who  had  invested  money  in  the  sale  naturally  complained 
bitterly  of  their  financial  loss.  Some  of  the  theologians  of  the 
university,  who  may  have  been  among  the  losers,  accused  Hus 
of  having  spread  heretical  statements  derived  from  Wycliffe's 
works.  These  theologians  wished  to  avoid  all  discussions  on 
the  subjects  on  which  Hus  generally  spoke,  such  as  the  scan- 
dalous sale  of  indulgences,  the  immorality  of  the  clergy,  the 
universal  prevalence  of  simony,  and  to  engage  him  in  another 
abstruse  discussion  of  some  obscure  passages  in  Wycliffe's 
works.  The  always  well-meaning  king  again  endeavoured  to 
mediate.  He  had  for  some  time  been  residing  at  his  castle  of 
Zebrak,  and  he  now  summoned  there  Hus  and  the  leaders  of 
the  Roman  party  at  the  university.     At  Zebrak  Hus  again 

1  We  must  reduce  to  this  amount  of  truth  the  statement  of  the  council 
that  Waldstein  had  led  a  large  procession  through  the  streets  of  Prague 
■publicis  meretricibits  praeconibus. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  155 

maintained  that  his  teaching  was  in  accordance  with  the  true 
Catholic  faith,  and  declared  that  he  was  ready  to  die  for  his 
opinions.  On  the  ultramontane  members  of  the  university 
being  asked  if  they  also  were  prepared  to  face  a  similar  fate, 
they  at  first  declined,  but  finally  stated  that  one  of  their 
number  was  prepared  to  do  so.  What  followed  does  not 
appear  very  clearly  from  the  contemporary  accounts.  An 
ordeal  such  as  that  which  was  held  in  the  case  of  Savonarola 
may  have  been  suggested.  The  meeting  broke  up  without 
any  result,  and  when  Hus  and  the  scholars  opposed  to  him 
left  the  castle,  the  royal  courtiers  more  kindly  than  wisely 
advised  them  "  to  reconcile  themselves  nicely."  On  Sunday, 
July  10,  the  theologians  of  the  university  were  again  invited 
to  Zebrak  by  the  king,  and  they  for  the  third  time  presented 
to  him  articles  concerning  Wycliffe's  doctrine.  Among  those 
present  were  representatives  of  the  towns  of  Prague  and 
several  royal  councillors  and  courtiers.  We  have  no  con- 
temporary account  of  this  assembly — no  doubt  because  the 
writers  believed  that  the  events  at  Prague  on  the  same  day 
rendered  it  very  unimportant. 

The  king  had  with  regrettable  leniency  condoned  Lord 
Vok  of  Waldstein's  participation  in  the  procession  through 
the  streets  of  Prague  and  had  continued  to  consider  him  as  a 
favourite.  He  had,  however,  in  agreement  with  the  town 
authorities  of  Prague,  published  a  decree  which  threatened 
with  the  death  penalty  all  who  should  take  part  in  riots  in 
the  streets  of  the  capital.  Compared  to  the  almost  exag- 
gerated leniency  that  had  hitherto  been  the  rule,  this  decree 
was  certainly  very  severe.  On  Sunday,  July  10,  the  vendors 
of  indulgences  who  had  lately  suffered  considerable  losses, 
encouraged  by  the  royal  decree,  when  preaching  in  several 
churches,  strongly  advised  their  congregations  to  add  to  the 
fund  which  Pope  John  was  raising  for  his  Neapolitan  cam- 
paign. They  were,  of  course,  not  scrupulous  in  their  enumera- 
tion of  the  advantages  which  the  faithful  would  thus  obtain. 


156  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Public  opinion  was  already  so  intensely  excited  and  irritated 
by  the  traffic  in  indulgences  that  troubles  broke  out  in  several 
churches.     In  the  cathedral  of  St.  Vitus,  the  Tyn  church,  and 
that  of  St.  Jacob  part  of  the  congregation  protested  against 
what   it   considered   a   glorification   of  simony.     In   each   of 
these  three  churches  a  young  man  who  was  supposed  to  be  the 
ringleader  was  arrested  and  brought  to  the  town  hall  of  the 
old  city.     Through  the  vicissitudes  of  municipal  politics,  into 
which  I  cannot  enter  here,  the  German,  or,  as  we  may  call  it, 
the  ultramontane  party,  had  at  that  moment  the  upper  hand 
in  the  councils  of  the  old  town.     The  members  of  this  party 
saw  that  the  government  of  their  city  was  slipping  away  from 
them,  and  they  determined  to  intimidate  the  people  by  a 
vigorous  action.     Here  again  it  may  be  interesting  to  read 
the  words  of  a  contemporary  writer.     After  mentioning  the 
imprisonment  of    the    three    youths,  the   chronicler    writes:1 
"  Here  I  could  tell  much  of  what  happened  the  day  before 
these  men  were  beheaded.     It  was  on  a  Monday  (that  they 
were  beheaded)  and  the  Sunday  before  they  were  arrested 
during  the  preaching.  .  .  .     But  I  must  shorten  my  account. 
I  was  present  on  that  Monday;   it  was  about  the  third  hour, 
and  it  was  already  rumoured  that  these  three  men  had  been 
imprisoned  because  of  the  indulgences;   and  the  news  reached 
Magister  Hus.     Then  Magister  Hus'  with  many  other  masters 
and  students  went  to  the  town  hall  begging  the  councillors  that 
they  would  allow  him  (Hus)  to  appear  before  them,  for  that  he 
wished  to  talk  with  them;    and  thus  they  allowed  him  with 
some    other    masters    to    appear    before    them.     The    other 
masters  remained  before  the  town  hall  with  their  students, 
of  whom  there  might  be  about  two  thousand.     Meanwhile, 
Master  Hus  spoke  to  the  councillors,  begging  them  to  do  no 
harm  to  the  three  because  of  the  indulgences,  and  saying  that 
he  was  himself  the  cause  of  the  opposition  to  the  indulgences. 

1  Ancient  Bohemian   Chroniclers,   vol.   iii.   pp.    16-18.      It   is   often  very 
difficult  to  translate  into  English  the  rugged  Bohemian  original. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION 


^7 


If  therefore  anything  was  to  be  done  to  them  for  this,  let  it  be 
rather  done  to  him,  for  he  was  the  first  cause  of  it.  The  coun- 
cillors, after  having  conferred  together  answered  him  and  the 
other  masters  who  were  with  him,  saying  that  nothing  would 
be  done  to  them  (i.e.,  the  three  young  men);  therefore  should 
they  with  their  following  go  home  and  all  disperse  to  their 
dwelling-places.  Then  Master  Hus,  thinking  that  nothing 
would  befall  the  young  men,  went  with  a  cheerful  mind  with 
all  his  followers  to  the  Bethlehem  chapel;  and  after  they  had 
escorted  him  home,  they  retired  each  one  to  his  dwelling- 
place.  A  large  crowd  had  assembled  on  the  market-place, 
waiting  to  see  what  would  happen,  and  what  would  be  the  end 
of  the  matter;  for  in  the  morning  the  town-criers  had  been 
told  to  call  on  all  rich  and  poor  to  assemble  on  the  market- 
place. Now,  however,  the  order  was  given  that  all  should 
leave  the  market-place  and  return  to  their  dwelling-places. 
And  when  almost  all  the  people  had  dispersed,  the  councillors 
ordered  the  judge  and  the  excutioners  to  lead  them  (the  young 
men)  aside  and  behead  them.  And  with  them  came  many 
soldiers  in  mail  from  the  town  hall — for  at  that  moment  all 
the  councillors  were  Germans,  the  armed  men  also  were 
Germans,  and  among  the  others  present  were  many  German 
citizens — and  when  they  had  securely  surrounded  them,  they 
ordered  them  to  be  beheaded,  to  the  great  displeasure  of  the 
mailed  soldiers.  They  did  not  lead  them  to  the  place  of 
execution,  but  to  a  spot  in  front  of  the  house  of  John  Celny;1 
there  they  beheaded  them.  And  immediately  a  pious  woman 
threw  three  linen  cloths  over  the  bodies  to  cover  them. 
Then  Master  John  of  Jicin,  with  a  large  crowd  of  magisters, 
bachelors,  students  and  common  people  assembled,  but  un- 
armed and  peacefully.  They  took  up  the  bodies  and  carried 
them  to  the  Bethlehem  chapel  without  asking  permission  of 
the  magistrates  nor  telling  them  where  they  were  taking  the 

1  At  the  corner  of  the  present  Zelezna  ulice  (Iron  Street)  at  the  northern 
extremity  of  the  market-place. 


158  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

bodies.  And  the  master  (John  of  Jicin)  with  a  loud  voice 
intoned  the  anthem,  Isti  Sunt  Sancti,1  which  is  sung  of  the  holy 
martyrs,  and  all  joining  with  loud  voices  in  the  singing  they 
bravely  and  joyfully  carried  the  bodies  to  Bethlehem,  while 
all  the  mailed  soldiers  and  councillors  looked  on.  Many 
students  also,  common  people,  lords  and  ladies,  followed  the 
bodies  with  much  crying  and  lament,  but  with  great  piety, 
and  while  accompanying  them  to  their  graves  they  heartily 
pitied  the  young  men,  saying  they  had  not  deserved 
to  die." 

Hus  acted  with  great  moderation  during  these  events. 
His  innate  belief  in  the  goodness  of  human  nature,  which  had 
led  him  to  hope  that  even  a  man  such  as  Pope  John  XXIII. 
would  do  him  justice  were  he  but  informed  of  the  noble  motives 
by  which  the  Bohemian  reformer  was  inspired,  had  also  led 
him  to  believe  the  word  of  the  German  councillors  of  the  old 
town  of  Prague.  He  continued  to  maintain  this  attitude  of 
moderation  even  after  the  judicial  murder  of  the  three  young 
men.  It  is  difficult  to  describe  otherwise  the  deed  of  the 
magistrates  of  Prague.  During  the  brawls  on  July  10,  violence 
had  been  used  on  both  sides.  The  three  young  men  were  only 
accused  of  having  noisily  interrupted  sermons;  on  the  other 
hand,  when  in  the  church  of  St.  Jacob,  part  of  the  congregation 
had  protested  against  the  sale  of  indulgences,  choir-boys  and 
young  monks  had  rushed  into  the  church  from  the  adjoin- 
ing monastery  and  had  driven  some  of  the  faithful  into  the 
common-room,  where  they  were  cruelly  flogged.  On  Sunday, 
July  17,  Hus  preached  as  usual  at  Bethlehem,  but  made  no 
allusion  to  the  events  of  the  past  week.  His  somewhat 
ignoble  adversaries,  the  rich  parish  priests  of  Prague,  declared 
that  he  had  been  intimidated  by  the  immediate  severe  punish- 
ment that  had  been  inflicted  on  the  three  young  men.  The 
motives  of  Hus  were  very  different.     He  knew  that  a  large 

1  These  words  belong  to  the  first  antiphone  of  the  second  vesper  in  the 
Commune  plurium  martyrum  of  the  Roman  breviary  (Dr.  Lechler). 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  159 

number  of  soldiers  had  been  gathered  together  in  the  town, 
and  though  he  had  always  cherished  loyal  feelings  toward 
Venceslas,  he  was  too  well  acquainted  with  him  not  to  know 
to  what  sudden  movements  of  fury  he  was  subject.  An  order 
of  the  king  could,  on  the  slightest  provocation  on  the  part  of 
the  citizens,  cause  a  terribly  murderous  struggle  in  the  streets, 
the  responsibility  for  which  Hus  could  not,  and  would  not 
assume.  One  word  of  Hus  from  the  Bethlehem  pulpit  would 
have  brought  on  such  a  desperate  struggle,  particularly  as 
many  Germans  and  Romanists  were  still  in  the  city. 
Through  Hus's  silence  such  a  catastrophe  was  averted.  The 
Praguers  also,  following  the  example  of  their  leader,  behaved 
on  this  occasion  with  studious  moderation.  They  indeed 
declared  themselves  ready  to  accept  death  as  the  three  young 
men  had  done,  but  no  attack  was  made  on  the  German 
soldiery.  We  meet  with  this  moderation  on  the  part  of  the 
citizens  of  Prague  generally  during  the  earlier  part  of  the 
Hussite  struggle.  If  after  the  ruthless  and  treacherous  execu- 
tion of  their  revered  leader  they  became  revengeful  and  cruel, 
those  only  are  entitled  to  blame  them  who  practise  truly  the 
precept:  "  Whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek, 
turn  to  him  the  other  also." 

Thanks  mainly  to  the  energy  of  the  notorious  Michael  de 
Causis  the  proceedings  at  the  papal  courts  had  meanwhile 
come  to  an  end.  In  August,  1412,  a  papal  bull,  published 
under  the  authority  of  Hus's  new  judge,  Cardinal  Peter  of 
St.  Angelo,  reached  Prague.  It  proclaimed  the  aggravation 
(aggravatio)  of  the  sentence  of  excommunication  which  Cardinal 
Colonna  had  previously  pronounced  against  Hus.  The  ban 
was  to  be  proclaimed  publicly,  and  all  the  faithful  were  for- 
bidden to  give  him  food  or  drink  or  to  speak  to  him;  then 
followed  all  the  habitual  clauses  of  a  mediaeval  bull  of  excom- 
munication. Hus's  reply  was  a  step  for  which  he  has  been 
frequently  blamed,  particularly  perhaps  by  those  who  did  not 
bear  sufficiently  in  mind  the  spirit  of  the  times  in  which  Hus 


160  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

lived.  He  appealed  1  from  the  sentence  of  the  Roman  pontiff 
to  Jesus  Christ,  the  supreme  judge.  In  an  age  when  positive 
and  undisputed  belief  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity was  universal,  the  direct  intervention  of  Divinity  in 
the  affairs  of  mankind  met  with  no  disbelief.  It  will  be 
remembered — to  quote  but  one  example — that  the  citizens 
of  Florence  at  one  time  placed  their  city  under  the  direct 
temporal  government  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  arguments  em- 
ployed by  Hus  in  his  appeal  were  simple.  He  stated  that  it 
was  not  from  obstinacy  that  he  had  refused  to  go  to  the  papal 
court,  that  his  first  representatives  there  had  been  im- 
prisoned, and  that  the  other  ones  had  been  refused  audience 
and  accused  of  heresy  without  being  allowed  to  defend  them- 
selves. The  enemies  of  Hus  do  not  appear  to  have  considered 
their  victory  over  Hus  at  the  papal  courts  as  sufficiently  com- 
plete. Again,  through  the  influence  of  Michael  de  causis,  a 
second  bull  appeared  which  commanded  all  the  faithful  to 
seize  Hus  by  force  and  deliver  him  over  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Prague  or  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl,  who  were  to  condemn  him 
and  have  him  burnt.  The  bull  also  decreed  that  the  Bethle- 
hem chapel,  "  a  nest  of  heretics,"  should  be  destroyed  and 
levelled  to  the  ground.  The  indefatigable  Michael  also  sug- 
gested that  King  Venceslas  and  his  most  prominent  coun- 
cillors and  courtiers  should  be  excommunicated.  Pope  John 
XXIII.,  however,  declined  to  accede  to  this  proposal.  The 
diavolo  cardinale  was  ready  to  proceed  to  any  lengths  against 
a  pious  and  powerless  priest,  but  he  could  not  afford  to  quarrel 
with  King  Venceslas.  The  partisans  of  Gregory  XII.  were 
at  that  moment  gaining  ground,  and  the  support  of  the  King 
of  Bohemia  might  become  of  great  importance  to  the  pope. 
These  measures  directed  against  Hus  were  followed  by  measures 
against  the  city  of  Prague.  The  interdict  was  again  pro- 
claimed, and  it  was  now  carried  out  thoroughly  with  all  the 

'  Appelatio  M.  Joannis   Hus   a  sententiis   pontificis   Romani   ad    Jesum 
Christum  supremum  judicem  (printed  by  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  464-466). 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  161 

accompanying  horrors  that  terrified  the  mediaeval  mind.  All 
masses  and  sermons,  all  religious  functions,  even  burial  with 
the  Christian  rites  were  prohibited.  The  sacrament  of  ex- 
treme unction  was  not  administered  to  the  dying ;  none  could 
confess,  or  receive  communion.  A  troop  of  German  fanatics 
attacked  the  Bethlehem  chapel,  while  Hus  was  preaching  there, 
but  the  determined  though  pacific  attitude  of  the  congregation 
intimidated  them  and  they  retired.  Somewhat  later— on 
October  i— Romanist  citizens,  led  by  the  parish  priest,  Bernard 
Chotek,  again  attacked  the  chapel,  but  were  repulsed  by  the 
friends  and  adherents  of  Hus,  who  were  keeping  watch. 

The  merciless  execution  of  the  interdict  at  Prague  greatly 
troubled  the  mind  of  Hus,  whose  conduct  was  always  guided 
by  his  conscience.  He  was  in  doubt  whether  he  should  leave 
the  city  or  remain  there.  He  has  himself  described  his  hesita- 
tion in  a  very  striking  manner  in  several  of  his  books.  '  To 
me  also,"  he  writes,  "  it  happened  that  some  advised  me  to 
preach  when  there  was  an  outcry  against  the  brethren  (of  the 
Bethlehem  chapel),  when  they  were  outlawed  and  their  religious 
services  were  stopped;  others  again  advised  me  not  to  preach. 
But  I  understood  that  both  advised  me  with  a  good  intention, 
and  I  was  not  certain  as  to  which  counsel  would  agree  with 
God's  will."  Closely  connected  with  the  question  whether  his 
duty  permitted  Hus  to  continue  preaching  was  the  question 
whether  he  should  stay  in  Prague  or  leave  that  city — as  he 
eventually  did.  This  decision  is  next  to  his  resolution  to  pro- 
ceed to  the  Council  of  Constance,  the  most  momentous  one  in 
his  life.  It  is  interesting  to  study  the  motives  of  his  decision 
rather  in  his  own  writings  than  in  the  comments  of  others. 
We  find  in  the  works  of  Hus  an  important  passage  x  that  deals 
with  this  question.  Hus  here,  as  so  frequently,  refers  to  the 
writings  of  St.  Augustine,  one  of  the  fathers  of  the  church  to 
whom  he  had  devoted  much  study.     Hus  writes:   "  Note  that 

1  Postilla,  xxv.  p.  165  of  Dr.  Flajshans's  edition.  I  have  somewhat 
abridged  Hus's  statements. 

L 


162  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

St.  Augustine  asks  this  question:  As  the  apostles  were  good 
shepherds  and  not  hirelings,1  why  did  they  fly  when  it  was 
attempted  to  kill  them?  But  they  acted  according  to  the 
word  of  Christ,  who  said:  When  they  persecute  you  in  this 
city,  flee  ye  into  another.2  And  Bishop  Honoratus  put  the 
same  question,  when  writing  to  St.  Augustine  and  asking  him 
what  he  should  do  when  men  were  attempting  his  destruction. 
'  Behold,'  he  said,  '  the  gospel  of  Christ:  when  they  persecute 
you  in  this  city  flee  ye  into  another.  And  Christ  also  said: 
"  He  that  is  an  hireling  and  not  the  shepherd,  whose  own  the 
sheep  are  not,  seeth  the  wolf  coming  and  leaveth  the  sheep 
and  fleeth."  How  then  shall  I  act  that  I  may  fulfil  this  word 
of  Christ,  and  yet  not  fly  like  a  hireling?  And  in  answer  to 
this  question  St.  Augustine  wrote  for  him  a  whole  book  in 
which  he  examines  the  whole  question  very  lengthily,  and  in 
conclusion  he  establishes  this  rule:  Either  the  danger  is  one 
that  threatens  equally  the  lives  of  all,  priests  and  laymen,  or. 
it  does  not  threaten  all.  If  the  danger  is  common  to  all,  then 
if  all  can  escape  to  a  safe  spot,  let  them  escape.  But  if  it  is 
not  the  life  of  all  that  is  threatened,  but  either  only  that  of  all 
the  priests  or  that  of  all  the  laymen :  if  only  the  laymen  are  in 
danger  the  priests  need  not  fly,  and  the  laymen  can  seek  safety, 
for  they  are  not  shepherds.  But  if  the  lives  of  all  priests  are 
menaced,  then  may  they  not  all  fly,  for  they  then  would  be 
hirelings,  leaving  their  people  without  spiritual  aid,  that  is 
without  God's  word  and  without  baptism.  .  .  .  But  if  only 
one  priest  is  in  danger  and  the  people  can  without  him  obtain 
spiritual  aid,  then  that  person  may  fly  for  future  benefit,  as 
the  apostle  Paul  fled  from  Damascus;  thus  also  St.  Athanasius 
fled  when  the  emperor  wished  to  kill  him;  and  after  he  had 
fled  he  later  rendered  great  service  to  the  holy  church  against 
the  heretics;  for  he  made  that  profession  of  faith  which  we 
usually  sing  or  recite  at  the  first  hour,  and  which  begins  with 
the  words:    "  Whosoever  will  be  saved."     But  if  the  people 

1  St.  John  x.  1 1 -i 2.  2St.  Matthew  x.  23. 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  163 

should  by  the  flight  of  a  priest  be  deprived  of  the  word  of  God 
and  of  baptism,  then  he  must  not  fly;  for  if  such  a  man  fled 
from  his  flock,  leaving  it  to  the  devil,  he  would  be  as  a  hireling, 
who  loves  his  body  more  than  the  salvation  of  his  fellow- 
creatures.'  Thus  did  St.  Augustine  answer  this  question  to 
this  Honoratus.  And  I  relying  on  the  love  of  God  and  the 
advice  of  many  whose  heels  I  am  not  worthy  to  kiss  and  on 
this  speech  of  St.  Augustine,  seeing  that  the  people  had  suffi- 
ciently of  God's  word  and  spiritual  aid,  fled  when  they  at- 
tempted to  murder  me.  Then  I  returned  and  again  preached, 
and  then  when  a  consultation  concerning  an  agreement  was 
held  by  wish  of  the  king  and  with  the  consent  of  the  people,  I 
again  fled.  Then  when  the  consultation  did  nothing  to  free 
the  word  of  God  (to  allow  the  freedom  of  preaching)  I  again 
preached  and  they  always  stopped  the  (religious)  services 
(because  of  the  interdict) ,  and  this  diabolical  stopping  caused 
great  injury  to  the  people  as  they  (the  priests)  would  neither 
christen  nor  bury  the  dead;  and  dreading  this  great  disaster 
among  the  people  I  again  fled.  And  I  know  not  whether  I 
did  well  or  evilly  like  a  hireling  nor  whether  these  reasons  will 
help  me  (to  prove)  that  I  was  not  a  hireling." 

This  passage  giving  an  interesting  insight  into  the  mind  of 
Hus  proves  how  earnestly  and  piously  he  weighed  all  argu- 
ments both  in  favour  of  his  leaving  Prague  and  of  his  remain- 
ing in  that  city.  As  already  mentioned,  Hus  finally  decided 
in  favour  of  the  former  alternative.  He  determined  to  leave 
Prague  for  a  short  time.  King  Venceslas  still  hoped  against 
hope  that  an  agreement  between  the  contending  parties  could 
be  concluded,  and  he  thought  that  the  absence  from  Prague  of 
Hus,  who  had  incurred  the  deadly  hatred  of  the  rich  parish 
priests,  would  facilitate  a  settlement.  He  therefore  begged 
Hus  to  leave  Prague  for  a  short  time,  and  the  pious  Queen 
Sophia,  who  had  always  continued  to  attend  Hus's  sermons  in 
the  Bethlehem  chapel,  probably  used  her  influence  for  the 
same  purpose.     Hus  was  also  moved  by  the  sufferings  of  the 


164  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

people  of  Prague  in  consequence  of  the  interdict  which,  now 
carried  out  with  relentless  severity,  deprived  them  of  all 
spiritual  consolations.  He  therefore  left  Prague,  probably  in 
October  1412.1 

The  departure  of  Hus  from  Prague  naturally  caused  great 
rejoicing  among  his  enemies,  who  declared  that  he  had  been 
expelled  from  the  city.  The  fanatical  monk  Stephen  of  Dolein 
in  particular  expressed  great  joy  that  "  he  who  in  spite  of  the 
prohibition  had  not  ceased  to  preach  and  would  not  leave 
Prague,  had  now  been  driven  away  by  the  just  judgment  of 
God."2 

The  period  in  the  life  of  Hus  with  which  this  and  the  fourth 
chapter  deal,  begins  with  his  formal  rupture  with  the  clergy 
and  ends  with  his  departure  from  Prague.  The  writings  of 
this  time,  which  Dr.  Flajshans,  whose  services  for  the  biblio- 
graphy of  Hus  cannot  be  sufficiently  praised,  calls  the  polemical 
period,  are  not  as  valuable  as  those  of  the  first  period,  to 
which  at  least  one  work  of  the  highest  value,  the  Super  IV. 
Sententiarum,  belongs.  Still  less  can  this  period  be  compared 
to  the  following  one,  to  which  belong  two  of  Hus's  greatest 
Bohemian  works,  as  well  as  his  hitherto  best  known  Latin 
book,  the  treatise  De  Ecclesia.  With  the  exception  of  a  few 
Bohemian  sermons,  all  the  writings  belonging  to  this  period 
are  Latin.  They  are,  as  already  mentioned,  mainly  of  a 
polemical  character.     Of  these  polemical  writings  the  treatise 

1  The  date  of  Hus's  departure  from  Prague  as  well  as  those  of  his  subse- 
quent short  visits  to  the  city  has  caused  much  controversy  among  the  modern 
historians  of  Bohemia — Palacky,  Tomek,  Dr.  Loserth,  have  all  suggested 
different  dates.  More  recently  Dr.  Novak  has  also  written  on  this  subject, 
which  is  also  thoroughly  discussed  by  Dr.  Vaclav  Novotny,  in  a  lengthy 
treatise  published  in  the  Vestnik  kr.  ceske  spolecnosti  nauk  (Journal  of  the 
Bohemian  Society  of  Science)  for  1898.  The  date  of  Hus's  departure  given 
here  is  in  accordance  with  Dr.  Novotny. 

2  Dolein  writes,  addressing  Hus:  "  Vides,  qui  pro  tempore  a  praedicatione 
et  tua  rebellione  ordinarie  prohibitus  in  loco  illo  cessare  noluisti,  jam  justo 
Dei  judicio  inde  cum  confusione  per  inobedientiam  ejectus,  jam  vagus  et 
latitans,  velis,  nolis,  silentio  comprimeris  et  ori  tuo  magnalia  eructanti  digitum 
superponis."  (Stephanus  Dolanensis  Antihussus,  Pez  Thesaurus  Anec- 
dotorum,  T.  iv.  par.  2,  p.  373.) 


HUS  AS  LEADER  OF  HIS  NATION  165 

Contra  Anglic  urn  Joan  Stokes  is  interesting.  It  refers  to  the 
conflict  between  Hus  and  the  English  ecclesiastic,  John  Stokes, 
which  took  place  at  Prague  and  which  has  already  been  men- 
tioned. Hus  has  in  this  treatise  reproduced  the  contents  of 
the  speech  against  Stokes  which  he  delivered  at  the  university. 
Stokes  had  stated  that  whoever  read  the  works  of  Wycliffe  or 
studied  them  would  in  the  course  of  time  become  a  heretic, 
however  good  his  disposition  might  be,  and  however  firmly 
his  faith  might  be  grounded.  The  treatise  is  valuable  as  it 
indicates  Hus's  attitude  with  regard  to  Wycliffe,  which  was 
by  no  means  one  of  blind  and  unreasoning  admiration,  as  has 
been  frequently  affirmed.  Hus  declines  to  give  a  positive 
answer  to  the  question  whether  Wycliffe  was  a  heretic  or  not, 
but  in  view  of  the  obscurity  of  the  question  he  thinks  it  more 
charitable  to  adopt  the  more  favourable  view  and  to  hope 
that  Wycliffe  obtained  salvation.1 

Perhaps  of  yet  greater  interest  is  another  polemical  treatise 
entitled  Contra  occultum  adversarium.  Though  Hus  does  not 
give  the  name  of  his  adversary,  the  person  referred  to  is  known 
to  have  been  the  Bohemian  priest  Marik  or  Mauritius  de  Praga, 
surnamed  Rvacka.  Marik  has  already  been  mentioned  as 
having  been  employed  by  King  Venceslas  in  negotiations  for 
the  purpose  of  terminating  the  schism.2  He  was  a  determined 
opponent  of  church  -  reform  and  secretly  attended  Hus's 
sermons,  taking  notes  there  concerning  those  points  in  which 
he  believed  that  Hus's  words  were  contrary  to  the  teaching 
of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Marik  affixed  to  the  pulpit  of  the 
Bethlehem  chapel  a  written  statement — given  in  full  in  Hus's 
treatise — in  which  he  declared  that  Hus  had  by  his  last  sermon 
attacked  the  law  of  God  and  the  authority  of  the  clergy.      The 

1  "  Ego  autem  non  credo  nee  concedo  quod  Magister  Joan  Wicleff  sit 
haereticus,  sed  nee  nego;  sed  spero  quod  non  est  haereticus  cum  in  occultis 
de  proximo  debeo  meliorem  partem  eligere,  unde  spero  quod  Magister  Joan 
Wicleff  est  de  salvandis."  (Contra  Anglicum  Joan  Stokes,  Nuremberg 
edition  of  Hus's  Latin  works,  1715,  vol.  i.  p.  136.) 

3  See  p.  99. 


166  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

principal  grievances  of  Marik  were,  firstly,  that  Hus  had  inter- 
preted the  action  of  Christ  who  had  driven  the  traders  from 
the  temple  as  signifying  that  He  had  granted  to  a  lay  king 
the  right  of  ruling  over  the  clergy,  and,  secondly,  that  Hus  had 
stated   that   Christ   had   lamented   over   the   destruction    of 
Jerusalem  principally  because  it  had  been  caused  by  the  sins 
of  the   clergy.     In   his   treatise   Hus   maintained   his   theses 
though  defining  them  in  a  manner  somewhat  different  from 
that  of  Marik.     The  treatise  Contra  occultum  adversarium  is 
very  difficult  reading  and  its  importance  is  not  immediately 
obvious.     Basing  as  usual  his  arguments  on  Scripture,  Hus 
here  maintains  the  power  which  the  secular  authorities  should 
exercise  over  the  church  in  a  manner  similar  to  that  of  Wycliffe 
— and  indeed  of  many  earlier  writers — as  well  as  to  that  of  the 
later  reformers,  of  Luther  in  particular.     The  friends  of  Hus 
therefore  strove,  and  strove  successfully,  to  prevent  this  treatise 
from  being  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance.    The  ecclesiastics  of  whom  that  assembly  was  mainly 
composed  would  of  course  deeply  resent  the  theories  contained 
in  the  treatise  as  encroaching  on  their  rights,  while  they  would 
not  obtain  for  Hus  the  support  of  Sigismund,  whose  desire  to 
annihilate  the  Bohemian  reformer  was  founded  on  political 
motives.     Hus's  language  in  this  treatise  is  very  outspoken. 
He  declares  that  it  is  the  duty  of  kings  and  lords  of  the  secular 
arm  to  restrain  the  wickedness  of  the  clergy  and  extirpate  the 
heresy  of  simony.1 

1  "  Dixi  quod  Sal va tor  noster  ejiciens  vendentes  et  ementes  de  templo 
dedit  exemplum  Regibus  et  Saccularis  brachic  Dominis  quod  vindicando  Dei 
injuriam  debent  primum  Cleri  malitiam  compescere  et  praesertim  Symoniacae 
haeresis  negotia  extirpere."  [Contra  occultum  adversarium,  edition  of  17 15, 
vol.  i.  p.  169.) 


CHAPTER   VI 

HUS   IN   EXILE 

Compared  to  the  period  of  constant  struggle,  such  as  thel 
years  1409  to  141 2  had  been  to  Hus,  the  time  between  October1 
141 2,  when  he  left  Prague,  and  October  1414,  when  he  started 
on  his  fateful  journey  to  Constance,  cannot  be  considered 
momentous.  Still  less  can  it  be  compared  in  interest  to  the 
period  of  Hus's  residence  in  Constance,  which  comprises  his 
imprisonment  and  sufferings  there,  and  his  death  which  has 
rendered  him  immortal.  If  these  months  during  which  Hus 
was  mostly  absent  from  Prague  do  not  require  as  detailed  an 
account  as  other  periods  of  his  life,  most  of  his  most  prominent 
works  were  written  at  this  time  and  will  require  careful  notice. 
It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  with  certainty  where  Hus  wended 
his  way  when  he  left  Prague.  As  was  the  case  a  century  later 
when  Luther  sought  refuge  in  the  Wartburg,  Hus  and  his 
friends  thought  it  advisable  that  his  dwelling-place  should 
remain  for  a  time  unknown.  It  appears  most  probable  that 
Hus  went  first  to  Southern  Bohemia,  and  a  very  ancient 
tradition  states  that  he  visited  Husinec,  his  birthplace,  and 
preached  there.  In  December  Hus  addressed  to  the  citizens 
of  Prague  a  letter  in  which  he  explained  to  them  the  reasons 
that  induced  him  to  leave  Prague.  He  again  referred  to  the 
passage  from  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  (chapter  x.),  which  has 
already  been  mentioned,1  and  defended  his  conduct  by  the 
example  given  by  Jesus  Christ.2  A  man  so  entirely  guided  by 
the  dictates  of  his  conscience  as  was  Hus  felt  obliged  to  recur 

1  See  p.  162. 

2  "  Non  igitur  minim  est  quod  ego  exemplo  ejus  (Christi)  fugi,  et  quia 
quaeritant  et  colloquuntur  sacerdotes  similiterque  alii,  ubi  sim  ego." 
(Piagetisibus,  December  141 2.     Palacky,  Documenia,  pp.  40-47.) 

167 


168  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

frequently  to  this  question,  and  we  find  allusions  to  it  in  several 
of  his  works.  It  is  certain  that  Hus  at  the  beginning  of  his 
exile  spent  some  time  at  the  castle,  or  "  tower  "  as  it  is  called 
in  Bohemian,  of  Kozi  Hradek,  the  property  of  John  the  elder, 
Lord  of  Usti,  one  of  the  firmest  upholders  of  the  cause  of 
church-reform. 

Shortly  after  the  departure  of  Hus  from  Prague,  King 
Venceslas  resumed  his  well-meant  attempts  to  re-establish 
religious  concord  in  Bohemia.  His  task  was  not  an  easy  one. 
The  opponents  of  church-reform,  considering  the  departure  of 
Hus  from  Prague  as  a  signal  victory,  became  more  exigent  and 
more  intransigent  in  consequence  of  that  event.  They  con- 
tinued to  maintain  that  Hus  had  been  expelled  from  Prague — 
a  totally  untrue  statement  that  was  repeated  by  the  mendacious 
Michael  de  causis  at  Constance.  The  Estates  of  Bohemia  met 
at  Prague  in  December.  Hus  from  his  place  of  exile  addressed 
a  petition  to  the  assembly,  in  which  he  complained  of  the 
persecution  which  he  had  suffered  on  the  part  of  the  parish 
priests  of  Prague  and  begged  that  the  freedom  of  preaching 
should  be  maintained  in  the  city.  Hus's  words  did  not  fail 
to  make  a  considerable  impression  on  the  members  of  this 
assembly,  composed  mainly  of  Bohemian  nobles,  many  of 
whom  shared  their  sovereign's  objection  to  the  extreme  power 
and  wealth  of  the  clergy.  It  is  but  just  to  add  that  some  of 
these  men  supported  the  cause  of  church-reform  from  higher 
motives  and  afterwards  offered  up  their  lives  for  it  on  the 
battlefields  of  the  Hussite  wars.  The  Estates  advised  the  king 
to  call  together  a  synod  of  the  Bohemian  clergy  which  was  to 
mediate  between  the  contending  parties.  Venceslas  gladly 
assented.  He  was,  during  all  these  protracted  negotiations, 
guided  by  the  wish  to  settle  as  far  as  possible  within  the 
country  the  differences  that  had  broken  out  among  the 
Bohemian  clergy.  It  was  endeavoured  to  exclude  as  far  as 
possible  the  intervention  of  Pope  John  XXIII.  The  latter  on 
February  2,  1413,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Roman  clergy  at  the 


HUS  IN  EXILE  169 

Lateran,  which  the  pope  considered  to  be  a  council,  condemned 
as  heretical  all  the  writings  of  Wycliffe  without  exception. 

The  meeting  of  the  Bohemian  synod  was,  however,  delayed 
by  a  new  change  in  the  person  of  the  Archbishop  of  Prague. 
Archbishop  Albik,  a  wealthy  and  well-intentioned  man  had, 
on  the  particular  request  of  King  Venceslas,  consented  to 
become  Archbishop  of  Prague  and  had  even,  according  to  the 
evil  custom  then  prevalent  in  Bohemia,  paid  a  large  sum  for 
that  honour.  Albik  soon  tired  of  his  new  dignity  and  felt  that 
it  became  ever  more  difficult  to  conform  to  the  wishes  both  of 
King  Venceslas  and  of  Pope  John,  whose  views  were  often 
directly  contradictory.  He  therefore  entered  into  an  agree- 
ment with  two  other  great  dignitaries  of  the  Bohemian  Church, 
according  to  which  they  were  on  receipt  of  a  considerable 
pecuniary  remuneration  to  exchange  their  offices.  Large 
presents  were  previously  sent  to  Pope  John  XXIII. ,  who  on 
receipt  of  them  gave  his  consent  to  the  agreement.  Albik 
resigned  the  archbishopric  of  Prague  in  favour  of  Conrad  of 
Vechta,  then  Bishop  of  Olomouc  (Olmiitz).  Conrad,  a  German 
of  Westphalian  origin,  had  been  one  of  the  favourites  of  King  ' 
Venceslas.  Later  in  life,  when  Archbishop  of  Prague,  he 
joined  the  Hussite  Church  and  became  the  object  of  great 
opprobrium  on  the  part  of  ultramontane  writers.  Tomek, 
whose  strictly  impartial  attitude  contrasts  favourably  with 
that  of  most  historians  of  this  period,  writes:  1  "  Archbishop 
Conrad  was  neither  better  nor  worse  than  the  great  majority 
of  those  who  held  the  prominent  ecclesiastical  offices  in 
Bohemia  in  his  time.  Like  the  others,  he  only  wished  to 
acquire  large  worldly  possessions  as  rapidly  as  possible."  A 
contemporary  chronicler,  writing  of  the  accession  of  Conrad  of 
Vechta,  tells  us:2  "Conrad  was  an  elderly  and  weak  man. 
He  pledged  many  of  the  towns  and  estates  belonging  to  the 
archbishopric,  and  some  are  still  in  pawn.     For  himself,  he 

1  Story  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iv.  p.  140. 
1  Ancient  Bohemian  Chroniclers,  vol.  iii.  p.  14. 


170  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

kept  only  the  Castle  of  Roudnice."  Albik,  however,  though 
anxious  to  abandon  the  difficult  task  of  ruling  the  archbishopric 
of  Prague,  had  no  intention  of  foregoing  altogether  the  eccle- 
siastical dignities  which  had  come  to  him  late  in  life.  A 
further  agreement,  concluded  at  the  same  time,  stipulated  that 
the  new  archbishop  should  cede  his  bishopric  of  Olomouc  to 
Venceslas  of  Burenic,  provost  of  the  Vysehrad,  who  was  to 
give  over  his  previous  dignity  to  Albik,  who  was  also  given 
the  titular  rank  of  Archbishop  of  Caesarea. 

Even  at  a  period  when  simony  was  universal  in  Bohemia, 
this  chaffering  for  the  highest  ecclesiastical  dignities  in  the 
land  became  the  subject  of  general  talk  and  caused  much 
scandal  and  indignation.1     It  is  in  such  occurrences  in  Bohemia 
itself,  far  more  than  in  the  influence  of  distant  countries,  that 
;  we  must  seek  the  origin  of  Hussitism  as  well  as  the  enthusiasm 
i  which  the  ascetic  teachings  of  Hus  aroused  in  Bohemia.     On 
;  the  other  hand,  the  more  Hus  spoke  against  the  avarice  and 
immorality  of  the  Bohemian  clergy,  the  greater  became  the 
hatred  and  the  animosity  of  the  unworthy  priests.     They  con- 
sidered it  necessary  to  silence  at  any  price  so  dangerous  an 
enthusiast — and  they  eventually  succeeded  in  doing  so. 

It  was  this  ignoble  traffic  in  ecclesiastical  dignities  which 
was  the  immediate  motive  of  Hus's  famous  treatise,  0  svato- 
kupectvi  (On  Simony),  which  will  be  mentioned  presently.  It 
was  probably  written  at  Prague,  where  Hus  stayed  secretly 
for  a  short  time  during  the  last  weeks  of  the  year  1412.  He 
wished  to  confer  there  with  his  friends  with  regard  to  the 
attitude  which  the  church-reformers  should  take  up  at  the 
synod  which  was  shortly  to  meet.  On  January  2,  1413,  King 
Venceslas  published  a  decree  summoning  the  members  of  the 
synod  to  meet  at  Nemecky  Brod  (Deutsch  Brod)  on  February 
1.  The  reason  why  the  meeting  was  not  to  take  place  at 
Prague  appears  to  have  been  that  Archbishop  Albik,  though 

1  A  contemporary  writer— quoted  by  Tomek — says:    "  Mirabile  cambium 
tecerunt!     Sed  utinam  illud  cambium  csset  sine  simonia  maxima." 


HUS  IN  EXILE  r7i 

he  had  resigned  his  dignity,  still  resided  in  the  archiepiscopal 
palace.  Albik,  however,  removed  from  his  former  residence 
before  February  I,  and  the  synod  took  place  at  the  palace 
of  the  archbishops.  Two  statements  were  immediately  laid 
before  the  assembly.  One,  which  emanated  from  the  party 
that  favoured  the  existent  state  of  affairs — it  would  be  in- 
vidious to  call  it  the  conservative  party — stated  that  the 
present  discord  had  been  caused  by  some  priests  who  had 
disobeyed  their  superiors,  and  by  those  who  spread  the  heresies 
of  Wycliffe.  They  therefore  recommended  that  Wycliffe's 
heresies  should  be  again  denounced,  and  that  the  papal  bull 
which  decreed  the  destruction  of  the  Bethlehem  chapel  should 
be  carried  out.  They  also  demanded  that  Hus  should  be 
delivered  up  to  the  temporal  authorities  to  receive  condign 
punishment.  An  additional  paper  from  the  same  source 
offered  suggestions  as  to  the  steps  to  be  taken  to  suppress  all 
opposition  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  also  protested  against 
Hus's  visits  to  Prague,  "  be  they  manifest  or  secret."  The 
church  -  reformers  in  their  statement  demanded  that  Hus 
should  be  allowed  to  appear  before  the  synod  in  his  own 
defence.  If  no  one  there  was  prepared  to  bring  accusations 
against  him,  then  those  who  had  calumniated  him  should  be 
called  on  to  prove  that,  as  they  had  previously  stated,  heresies 
were  prevalent  in  Bohemia;  should  they  be  unable  to  do  this, 
they  were  to  be  punished.  Simultaneously  the  university  also 
forwarded  to  the  synod  a  document  from  the  pen  of  the  gifted 
Master  Jacobellus  which  covered  the  same  ground  as  the  one 
mentioned  before,  but  expressed  more  fully  and  more  clearly 
the  views  of  the  Bohemian  church-reformers.  It  began  by 
stating  the  necessity  of  restoring  peace  in  Bohemia  and  putting 
a  stop  to  the  disorders  in  the  Bohemian  Church.  The  king 
should  therefore  take  determined  measures  to  secure  the 
re-establishment  of  peace  and  concord,  to  destroy  the  heresy 
of  simony,  adultery,  fornication,  concubinage,  and  the  super- 
fluity of  worldly  goods  and  temporal  power  among  the  clergy. 


172  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

The  priests  would  thus  be  able  to  discharge  more  freely  their 
sacerdotal  duties  and  live  according  to  the  rules  of  the  gospel ; 
the  laity  also  would  in  consequence  fulfil  more  worthily  its 
duties  according  to  the  decrees  of  Scripture.  All  customs 
obviously  contrary  to  Christ's  law  which  had  been  introduced 
among  the  Christian  people  should  be  extirpated  everywhere 
— from  the  king  downward  to  the  meanest  layman.  With 
regard  to  Hus,  the  statement  demanded  that  he  should  be 
confronted  with  his  adversaries.  Should  it,  after  this  con- 
frontation, appear  to  be  impossible  to  obtain  both  spiritual 
unity  and  worldly  advantage,  let  at  least  peace  and  concord 
according  to  Christ's  law  be  maintained  in  Bohemia,  and  all 
be  ordered  to  conform  to  it.  Then  would  evil  report  and  the 
accusation  of  heresy  not  harm  the  kingdom  of  Bohemia.  If 
unfounded  evil  report  did  not  harm  the  Son  of  God,  neither 
would  it  harm  the  Bohemian  kingdom.  The  puritanic  note 
of  this  spirited  declaration  is  very  striking.  We  meet  here 
with  ideas  such  as  that  of  the  duty  of  rulers  to  suppress  open 
sin  that  played  a  large  part  in  the  Hussite  movement.  The 
controversy  continued,  and  both  parties  replied  to  the  accusa- 
tions raised  against  them  by  their  opponents.  The  friends 
of  church  -  reform  denied  again  that  Hus  and  his  friends 
were  guilty  of  heresy.  They  maintained  that  the  real 
cause  of  the  complaints  against  them  was  the  fact  that 
they  had  strongly  denounced  the  vices  prevalent  among  the 
Bohemian  clergy.  The  party  opposed  to  church-reform  found 
a  very  energetic  champion  in  John  the  iron,  bishop  of 
Litomysl,  afterwards  of  Olomouc.  He  addressed  to  the  new 
Archbishop  Conrad  a  letter  couched  in  very  strong  language, 
but  which  contained  nothing  that  had  not  been  previously 
stated.  The  bishop  made  no  allusion  to  church-reform,  but 
maintained  that  the  pope  alone  could  and  should  decide  on 
all  contentious  questions  of  doctrine,  and  insisted  on  the  blind 
obedience  to  their  hierarchical  superiors  which  was  the  duty 
of  all  priests.     Hus  was  denounced  in  violent  terms  as  one 


HUS  IN  EXILE  173 

who  shed  the  venom  of  his  wickedness,  heeding  not  the  papal 
interdict,  who  falsely  invoked  in  his  favour  decisions  of  the 
church  that  had  never  been  published,  that  he  might  not  be 
hindered  by  the  teaching  of  the  church  which  did  not  admit 
the  "  snarling  of  foxes  and  howling  of  wolves  "  which  Hus 
mendaciously  declared  to  be  evangelical  voices.1  As  was 
inevitable  under  the  circumstances,  the  synod  soon  separated 
without  having  arrived  at  any  conclusion.  Hus  had  again 
left  Prague,  probably  at  the  time  when  the  sittings  of  the 
synod  began.  He  appears  again  to  have  been  guided  by  the 
advice  of  the  king,  who  well  knew  that  his  renewed  preaching 
at  the  Bethlehem  chapel  had  greatly  irritated  those  who 
wished  to  suppress  at  any  price  every  discussion  on  the  all- 
important  question  of  the  prevalence  of  simony. 

King  Venceslas  was  naturally  greatly  disappointed  at  the 
complete  failure  of  the  synod  in  which  he  had  placed  great 
hopes.  He  rightly  attributed  this  failure  mainly  to  the  attitude 
of  the  opponents  of  Hus,  and,  always  an  enemy  of  the  rich  and 
overbearing  higher  clergy  of  Bohemia,  he  now  became  even 
more  determined  in  his  hostility  to  these  men.  He  did  not, 
however,  even  now  despair  of  reconciling  the  contending 
parties.  By  his  wish  a  large  number  of  prominent  ecclesiastics 
in  April  1414  met  for  another  conference  at  the  house  of 
Magister  Kristan  of  Prachatice,  parish  priest  of  St.  Michael, 
who  was  at  that  time  also  rector  of  the  university.  Kristan 
was  a  thorough  adherent  of  Hus,  and  the  choice  of  the  meeting- 
place  proves  that  the  king  still  favoured  the  party  of  church- 
reform.  As  royal  commissioners  Archbishop  Albik  and 
Zdenek  of  Laboun,  Provost  of  All  Saints,  were  present.  Four 
masters  of  theology,  Peter  and  Stanislas  of  Znoymo,  Stephen 
Palec,  and  John  Elias,  represented  the  theological  faculty,  in 
which  the   opponents   of  church-reform  still  had  the  upper 

1  All  the  documents  concerning  the  synod  referred  to  above  are  published 
by  Palacky,  Docnmenta,  pp.  472-504.  It  has  here  only  been  possible  to  note 
the  most  important  points. 


174  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

hand.  The  other  representatives  of  the  university  were, 
besides  Kristan  the  rector,  Magister  Jacobellus,  Simon  of 
Tisnov,  and  John  of  Jesenice,  one  of  Hus's  intimate  friends, 
who  seems  to  have  acted  as  his  representative  at  the  confer- 
ence. The  conference  ended  almost  as  soon  as  it  began. 
Acting  by  royal  authority  Zdenek  of  Laboun  asked  the  assembly 
whether  they  would  consider  themselves  bound  by  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Roman  Church  in  all  matters  of  faith.  Palec  and 
his  friends  said  that  they  agreed  to  this,  but  added  that  they 
wished  to  state  that  the  Roman  Church  was  that  of  which 
Pope  John  XXIII.  was  the  head,  and  his  cardinals  the  members. 
John  of  Jesenice  protested  against  this  statement  declaring 
that  the  Roman  Church  was  that  of  which  Christ  was  the  head 
while  the  pope  was  his  representative.  He  added  that  he  and 
his  friends  would  obey  this  church  "  as  faithful  and  pious 
Christians."  Laboun,  who,  like  his  master,  wished  above  all 
things  to  re-establish  concord  in  the  country,  declared  that 
these  definitions  formed  the  base  of  an  agreement  and  that 
their  acceptation  bound  all  present  under  penalty  of  fine  and 
imprisonment  to  submit  to  whatever  resolutions  the  conference 
might  adopt.  His  hopes  were  not  destined  to  be  fulfilled. 
At  the  second  meeting  of  the  conference  Stephen  Palec  raised 
various  sophistical  objections  to  the  continuation  of  the  pro- 
ceedings.1 The  bad  faith  of  Palec  appears  to  have  been  so 
palpable  that  it  caused  the  indignation  of  the  royal  commis- 
sioners, who  spoke  sharply  to  Palec,  accusing  him  of  rendering 
an  agreement  impossible,  while  the  friends  of  church-reform 
had  been  willing  to  come  to  terms.2    The  conscience  of  Palec 

1  It  has  not  appeared  to  me  necessary  to  give  a  full  account  of  these 
objections.  They  will  be  found  in  Dr.  Flajshans,  Mistr  Jan  Hus,  p.  325,  and 
Tomek,  History  of  the  Town  of  Prague,  vol.  iii.  p.  538.  We  have  also  Palec's 
own  letter  to  his  colleagues  of  the  theological  facultv  (Palacky,  Documenta, 
pp.  507-510). 

a  "  Ipsi  vero  "  (the  royal  commissioners)  "  commoti  sunt  et  nos  gravissime 
inclamaverunt,  comminationes  facientes  quod  infra  sex  dies  adhuc,  debet 
redundare  in  nostra  capita,  et  quod  volunt  D.  Regi  et  omnibus  dicere  quod 
pars  adversa  vult  et  voluit,  quae  nos  optavimus  consentire  et  omnia  facere, 
et  nos  noluimus  acceptare;  et  sic  cum  indignatione  magna  stomachati 
recesserunt."      (Letter  of  Palec.     Palacky,  Documenta,  p.  509.) 


HUS  IN  EXILE  I75 

does  not  appear  to  have  been  very  clear,  for  he  and  his  col- 
leagues did  not  assist  again  at  the  meetings  of  the  conference, 
which  therefore  broke  up.  Palec  and  the  other  members  of 
the  theological  faculty,  declaring  that  they  were  afraid  of  the 
anger  of  King  Venceslas,  left  Bohemia  and  retired  to  foreign 
countries,  where  they  continued  to  stir  up  public  opinion  not 
only  against  Hus  and  his  disciples,  but  also  against  the  King 
and  Queen  of  Bohemia  and  their  court.  Many  of  their  false- 
hoods and  fictions  were  circulated  at  Constance  and  have  even 
found  their  way  into  books  written  centuries  after  these 
events.  King  Venceslas  was  not  unnaturally  indignant  at  the 
departure  of  Palec,  which  accentuated  the  failure  of  another 
attempt  to  re-establish  concord  in  his  kingdom.  By  a  decree 
published  in  the  month  of  April  1414  he  pronounced  the 
sentence  of  banishment  against  Palec  and  his  companions  and 
gave  the  order  that  other  masters  should  in  order  of  seniority 
obtain  the  offices  that  had  become  vacant. 

Hus  had  on  leaving  Prague  again  retired  to  the  castle  of 
Kozi  Hradek.1  He  seems  now  to  have  despaired  of  a  recon- 
ciliation between  the  contending  parties  and  to  have  spoken 
even  more  openly  than  before.  Now,  as  ever,  he  dwelt  little 
in  his  sermons  on  controversial  matters  of  theology,  but  he 
exhorted  the  peasants  who  flocked  to  his  preaching  to  lead 
honest,  chaste,  pious,  and  abstemious  lives  and  to  demand  that 
the  priests,  who,  according  to  the  church,  were  superior  to 
them  in  authority,  should  at  least  not  be  inferior  to  them 
in  their  private  life.  Hus  preached  not  only  in  the  immediate 
neighbourhood  of  Kozi  Hradek,  but  also  at  more  distant 
places  such  as  Usti,  Lhota,  and  at  Cerveny  Dvur,  where, 
according  to  a  very  ancient  tradition,  he  said  mass  in  a  barn. 
His  sermons,  preached  of  course  in  the  national  language, 
attracted  great  crowds  and  caused  intense  enthusiasm.  The 
neighbourhood  of  Tabor  henceforth  became  the  centre  of  the 

1  According  to  some  Bohemian  writers  the  spot  to  which  Hus  first  retired 
on  leaving  Prague  is  uncertain,  and  he  only  now  proceeded  to  Kozi  Hradek. 


176  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

partisans  of  church-reform.  Among  the  younger  men  who 
listened  to  Hus's  preaching  were  many  who  afterwards  as 
"  warriors  of  God  "  formed  part  of  the  armies  which  under 
Zizka  beat  back  the  forces  of  the  whole  world  that  was  in 
arms  against  Bohemia.  From  this  period  dates  the  immense 
popularity  of  Hus  among  the  Bohemian  people — a  popularity 
that  clings  to  his  memory  up  to  the  present  day.  It  would, 
however,  be  very  untrue  to  history  if  we  pictured  Hus  as  a 
democratic  or  socialist  agitator — and  it  is  not  only  his  enemies 
who  have  sometimes  attempted  to  do  this.  Hus  remained  to 
his  death  a  loyal  subject  of  King  Venceslas,  and  for  his  pious 
consort,  Queen  Sophia,  he  always  retained  a  respectful  admira- 
tion. He  was  always  on  terms  of  friendship  with  many  of  the 
Bohemian  nobles,  as  is  indeed  proved  by  the  fact  that  he 
sought  refuge  in  their  castles.  As  he  wrote  in  his  famed 
Bohemian  letter  of  June  10,  1415 — a  letter  to  which  I  shall 
again  refer — he  wished  "  the  nobles  to  rule  justly,  the  burghers 
to  conduct  their  business  honestly,  the  artisans  to  work  con- 
scientiously, the  servants  to  obey  faithfully  their  master  and 
mistress."  The  unspeakably  evil  life,  the  avarice,  and  the 
simony  of  the  Bohemian  clergy  strongly  excited  his  indignation, 
and  as  a  true  Bohemian  patriot  he  deeply  resented  the  fact 
that,  in  consequence  of  former  faulty  regulations  of  the  uni- 
versity, the  rich  benefices  of  his  country  were  almost  exclusively 
in  the  hands  of  German  aliens.  Frequent  preaching  did  not, 
however,  entirely  absorb  the  activity  of  Hus  at  Kozi  Hradek. 
He  kept  up  a  constant  correspondence  with  his  many  friends 
at  Prague  and  exhorted  them  to  continue  to  worship  at  the 
Bethlehem  chapel  as  long  as  it  should  not  have  been  de- 
stroyed by  the  Germans;  for  it  was  frequently  rumoured  at 
this  time  that  they  had  the  intention  of  doing  so.  Some  of 
Hus's  most  important  works  also  were  written  at  the  castle 
of  Kozi. 

Neither  the  departure  of  Hus  from  Prague  nor  the  exile  of 
Palec  and  his  adherents  had  re-established  tranquillity  in  the 


HUS  IN  EXILE  177 

city.  Lengthy  and  wordy  warfare  was  carried  on  between 
the  contending  parties  by  means  of  numerous  books  and 
pamphlets.  Some  writings  of  Hus  which  deal  with  these 
polemics  will  be  mentioned  presently  when  referring  to  his 
works  of  this  period.  The  population  of  Prague  took  an 
increasing  interest  in  the  controversy.  Bohemia  has,  except 
during  the  not  infrequent  periods  when  the  ruling  powers  have 
forbidden  all  discussions  on  matters  of  religion,  been  one  of 
those  countries  where,  as  in  England  and  Scotland,  theological 
controversies  have  greatly  interested  the  large  masses  of  the 
people.  Nicknames  were  soon  given  to  the  adherents  of  the 
contending  parties,  and  while  the  upholders  of  church-reform 
were  called  "  Wycleffites,"  its  opponents  became  known  as 
"  the  Mohamedans."  The  latter  strange  byname  is  said  to 
have  been  given  to  them  because  of  the  violence  with  which 
they  enforced  their  doctrines.1  It  may  also  have  conveyed  an 
ironical  allusion  to  the  morals  of  the  rich  parish  priests  of 
Prague,  who  were  Hus's  bitterest  enemies. 

Foreign  countries,  in  which — with  the  exception  of  England 
— Hus's  teaching  had  not  hitherto  attracted  much  attention, 
now  began  to  feel  a  certain  interest  in  the  Bohemian  move- 
ment in  favour  of  church-reform.  The  first  statements  con- 
cerning the  Bohemian  movement  came  from  France,  a  country 
that,  mainly  through  dynastic  links,  had  for  some  time  been 
closely  connected  with  Bohemia.  A  man  whose  opinion\ 
carried  the  greatest  weight  in  France  wrote  denouncing 
severely  the  endeavours  of  Hus  and  his  friends.  This  man 
was  the  famed  divine,  John  Gerson,  then  chancellor  of  the J 
University  of  Paris.  Since  Dr.  Schwab2  has  proved  that 
Gerson  was  not  the  author  of  the  treatise  De  modis  uniendi  et 
reformandi  Ecclesiam 3  long  attributed  to   him,   and  on  the 

1  This  is  the  explanation  given  by  Magister  Jacobellus  in  a  treatise  printed 
by  Von  der   Hardt,  Magnum   Oecomenicum  consilium   Conlantiense.  in. 
Jacobellus   writes:     "  Hanc   enim    legem,    ut   legitur   in   chronicis   Machmet 
docuit  suos.  ut  scilicet  persequerentur  et  occiderent,  non  Christus." 

-  Dr.  Schwab,  Johannes  Gerson. 

3  Printed  by  Von  der  Hardt,  who  attributed  the  authorship  to  Gerson. 

M 


178  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

strength  of  which  he  was  believed  to  have  been  a  tolerant  and 
enlightened  divine,  Gerson's  violent  attack  on  the  Bohemian 
church-reformers  no  longer  causes  surprise.  In  a  letter  sent 
from  Paris  on  May  27,  1414,  to  the  new  Archbishop  Conrad,1 
Gerson  denounced  the  heretical  views  that  were  then  being 
spread  in  Bohemia,  and  earnestly  entreated  the  archbishop  to 
extirpate  at  any  price  all  doctrines  and  practices  contrary  to 
the  Roman  Church.  Gerson  laid  great  stress  on  the  necessity 
of  employing  if  necessary  the  secular  arm.  This,  he  continued, 
the  archbishop  should  do  at  any  price  lest  his  sheep  be  in- 
fected with  the  poison  of  heresy;  for  St.  Peter,  who  had  con- 
fided them  to  him,  had  ordered  him  to  feed  them,  not  to  allow 
them  to  be  poisoned.  Archbishop  Conrad  was  to  appeal  to 
King  Venceslas  to  advise,  request,  and,  if  necessary,  order  him 
to  exterminate  all  heresies,  if  he  wished  to  avoid  the  penalties 
that  awaited  all  rulers  who  were  lax  in  the  persecution  of 
heretics.  Conrad's  answer2  was  very  short.  He  entirely 
joined  in  the  reprobation  of  the  "  heresiarch  "  Wycliffe,  and 
said  that  as  far  as  it  was  his  duty  and  circumstances  permitted 
he  would  extirpate  heresy,  even  at  the  risk  of  his  soul  or  his 
body.  Conrad,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  royal  court, 
knew  how  anxious  the  king  was  to  re-establish  peace  among 
the  Bohemian  clergy,  and  how  strongly  he  objected  to  the 
intervention  of  foreigners  in  what  he  considered  the  internal 
affairs  of  his  country.  Gerson  was  by  no  means  deterred  from 
further  attempts  to  obtrude  his  unwelcome  advice.  He  ad- 
dressed another  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Prague,3  in  which 
he  laid  great  stress  on  the  fact  that  it  was  rather  by  fire  and 
sword  than  by  argument  that  the  prevalent  heresies  should  be 
extirpated.4  Gerson  sent  with  this  letter  a  list  of  heretical 
statements  which,  as  he  said,  had  been  made  by  Hus.     We 

1  Printed  by  Palacky,  Documenta. 

-  Palacky,  Documenta.  3  Ibid. 

*  "  Videtur  autem  parvitati  meae  quod  contra  nunc  errorem  exsurgere 
deberet  omnis  dominatio  tarn  spiritualis  quam  temporalis  ad  cxtcvminationem 
magis  igne  et  gladio  quam  cuviosa  ratiocinatione." 


HUS  IN  EXILE  i79 

again  find  among  them  the  wearisome  falsehood  that  Hus  had 
said  that  the  sacraments  were  invalid  when  administered  by 
an  unworthy  priest.  These  bitter  letters,  written  some  time 
before  the  meeting  of  the  Council  of  Constance,  render  Gerson's 
intransigent  attitude  at  that  assembly  less  surprising.  The 
voice  of  Gerson  did  not  remain  isolated.  Thus  Simon,  Cardinal 
of  Rheims,  addressed  a  letter  to  Archbishop  Conrad  in  which 
he  also  begged  him  to  extirpate  heresy  in  his  diocese.1  The 
evil  fame  of  Bohemia  as  a  country  where  heretics  dwelt  now 
began  to  spread,  and  was  indeed  scarcely  extinct  among  the 
uneducated  in  Austria  before  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  We  find  an  early  proof  of  this  animosity  when 
we  read  that  Bohemian  students  were  attacked  as  being 
"  heretics  "  at  the  then  newly-founded  University  of  Vienna. 
A  letter  of  Magister  Michael  Malenic,  rector  of  the  University 
of  Prague,  in  which  he  complains  to  the  authorities  of  the 
Vienna  University  of  the  ill-treatment  of  Bohemian  scholars, 
has  been  preserved.2 

The  movements  of  Hus  are  at  this  period  very  uncertain, 
but  there  is  little  doubt  that  he  paid  another  short  visit  to 
Prague  in  April  1414.  He  appears  not  to  have  stayed  there 
long.  The  letters  of  Gerson,  who  as  chancellor  of  the  famed 
University  of  Paris  and  friend  of  the  French  royal  family  was 
greatly  esteemed,  made  Hus's  position  in  Prague  even  more 
difficult  than  it  had  been  before,  and  they  may  also  have  im- 
pressed for  a  time  King  Venceslas.  He  was  at  heart  always  a 
friend  of  Hus,  but  greatly  feared  his  treacherous  younger 
brother  Sigismund,  through  whose  intrigues  he  had  at  the 
beginning  of  his  reign  twice  been  imprisoned  by  his  own 
subjects.  Utterly  faithless  and  unscrupulous  as  was  Sigis- 
mund, he  was  as  ready  to  employ  the  accusation  of  heresy  as 
any  other  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  his  brother.  Hus,  in 
whose  character  his  deep  gratitude  for  the  often  unstable 
support  of  his  king  must  be  noted  as  a  somewhat  touching 
1  Palacky,  Documenta.  -  Ibid. 


180  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

feature,  decided  again  to  leave  Prague.  He  did  not,  however, 
return  to  Kozi  Hradek,  but  accepted  the  invitation  of  Lord 
Henry  Lefl  of  Lazan  to  make  his  temporary  home  at  Krakovec, 
one  of  Lord  Henry's  many  castles.  Krakovec,  near  the  small 
town  of  Rakonic  in  Western  Bohemia,  was,  very  conveniently 
for  Hus,  situated  much  nearer  to  the  capital  than  Kozi 
Hradek.  The  career  of  Henry  of  Lazan  is  very  interesting  as 
being  typical  of  that  of  many  Bohemian  nobles  of  his  time. 
He  had  met  Hus  at  the  court  of  King  Venceslas  and  had,  like 
so  many  others,  been  fascinated  by  the  manner  and  the  enthu- 
siasm of  the  young  Bohemian  priest.  Lazan  was  one  of  those 
who,  when  Hus  was  illegally  imprisoned  at  Constance,  de- 
manded most  energetically  that  King  Sigismund  should  release 
him.  Yet  he,  some  time  after  the  execution  of  Hus,  joined  the 
forces  of  Sigismund,  whom,  after  the  death  of  King  Venceslas, 
he  considered  his  legitimate  sovereign.  He  fell  fighting  against 
his  country  at  the  battle  of  the  Vysehrad,1  and  before  dying 
received  communion  in  the  two  kinds  according  to  the  custom 
of  his  own  Bohemian  Church.2  Perhaps  among  no  class  of 
men  have  these  conflicts  of  contradictory  duties  been  so  fre- 
quent and  so  painful  as  among  the  nobles  of  Bohemia.  At 
Krakovec,  as  at  Kozi  Hradek,  Hus  worked  assiduously  at  the 
numerous  and  important  books  that  belong  to  this  period  of 
his  life.  He  also  continued  preaching  to  the  people,  who  again 
flocked  to  his  sermons,  even  from  great  distances.  Hus  was 
in  constant  touch  with  the  court  of  King  Venceslas,  and  it  is 
probable  that  he  was  about  this  time  informed  of  the  plan  of 
convoking  a  general  council  of  the  church,  and  of  the  possi- 
bility that  he  might  be  summoned  to  defend  his  opinions  there. 
The  innate  goodness  of  Hus  always  led  him  to  disbelieve  in 
V  evil,  unless  confronted  by  its  dire  reality.  He  believed  that 
the  proceedings  of  the  council  would  be  somewhat  similar  to 

1  See  Chapter  XII. 

2  Lawrence  of  Brezova,  p.  440  of  Dr.  Goll's  edition.     See  also  Dr.  Flajshans, 
Mistr  Jan  Hus,  p.  348. 


HUS  IN  EXILE  181 

those  of  the  "  disputations  "  in  which  he  had  so  often  taken 
part  in  Prague.  He  did  not  think  that  the  council  would  pro- 
ceed almost  exactly  on  the  lines  of  the  trials  instituted  by  the 
inquisition,  that  he  would  merely  be  summoned  to  recant  all 
statements  attributed  to  him  by  his  enemies — whether  he  had 
ever  made  them  or  not — and  that  in  case  of  his  refusal  he  would 
be  delivered  over  to  the  civic  authorities  to  suffer  death  at  the 
stake. 

Meanwhile  the  negotiations  between  Venceslas's  treach- 
erous brother  Sigismund  and  Pope  John  XXI 1 1.,  which  were 
to  lead  to  the  meeting  of  the  council  at  Constance,  had 
already  begun.  The  diavolo  cardinale  was  strongly  opposed 
to  a  general  council  of  the  church,  and  particularly  to  one  held 
outside  the  frontiers  of  Italy.  He  still  had  in  that  country  a 
large  military  force  by  means  of  which  he  could,  should  a 
council  meet  in  Italy,  exercise  over  it  the  same  dictatorial 
power  which  he  had  previously  exercised  at  Pisa  and  Rome. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  pope  was  obliged  to  consider  the  wishes 
of  King  Sigismund,  for  the  two  rival  popes  still  had  many 
adherents.  Another  difficulty  that  confronted  the  pope  was 
that,  even  at  that  unscrupulous  and  unspeakably  corrupt 
period,  his  evil  life  caused  much  scandal.  At  the  recent 
"  private  council,"  if  we  may  call  it  so,  Baldassare  Cossa  was 
said  to  have  stopped  on  their  way  to  Rome  and  ordered  back  all 
prelates  whom  he  believed  to  be  hostile  to  his  cause.  Sigis- 
mund, whose  help  against  his  old  enemy,  the  King  of  Naples, 
Cossa  then  desired,  was  intent  on  furthering  the  meeting  of  a 
general  council  of  the  church,  which  was  to  assemble  under  his 
control  in  an  imperial  free  city.  He  rightly  thought  that 
nothing  would  contribute  more  to  the  restoration  of  the  some- 
what faded  prestige  of  the  empire.  The  fact  that  war  was 
then  about  to  break  out  between  England  and  France  also 
made  the  moment  appear  a  favourable  one  for  reviving  the 
glories  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  It  is  probable  that  to  the 
humble  priest  John  of   Husinec   Sigismund   also   assigned  a 


182  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

part  in  his  far-reaching  plans.  Sigismund,  always  well  in- 
formed on  matters  concerning  Bohemia,  knew  that  Venceslas 
had  to  a  great  extent  regained  his  popularity  in  that  country. 
His  vices,  in  consequence  of  the  influence  of  the  pious  Queen 
Sophia,  were  less  prominent.  He  was  decidedly  popular 
with  the  townsmen  and  on  good  terms  with  a  large  part  of 
the  nobility.  Sigismund  knew  that  he  could  not  now,  acting 
as  a  bandit,  seize  and  imprison  his  brother,  as  had  been  possible 
formerly.  Sigismund  had,  as  he  mentioned  at  Constance, 
followed  the  career  of  Hus  from  its  beginning.  He  did  not 
doubt  that  the  pious,  simple-minded  priest,  whose  actions 
were  entirely  governed  by  his  conscience,  would  consider  it 
his  duty  to  appear  at  the  council.  Still  less  did  he  doubt  that 
it  would  be  possible  to  prevent  Hus's  return  to  his  native 
country.  This,  at  least,  he  was  from  the  first  determined  to 
prevent.  Sigismund  believed — wrongly,  as  events  proved, — 
that  Hussitism,  Hus  once  removed,  would  have  a  brief  and 
precarious  existence.  The  king  knew  that  both  Venceslas 
and  Queen  Sophia  were  already  suspected  of  heresy.  Should 
they  be  convicted  of  it,  Sigismund  could,  as  defender  of  the 
Roman  faith,  conquer  Bohemia  and  free  himself  of  his  detested 
brother.  The  English  students  of  the  life  of  Hus  have  gener- 
ally first  met  with  Sigismund  when  he  entered  the  cathedral 
of  Constance  on  Christmas  Day,  1414.  His  earlier  record,  his 
actions  in  Poland  and  Hungary,  tainted  as  they  are  with  per- 
fidy and  treachery  of  every  description,  are  less  known.1 

The  two  men,  who,  not  to  the  honour  of  humanity,  were 
then  the  rulers  of  the  Christian  world,  had  some  difficulty  in 
agreeing  as  to  the  locality  and  the  date  of  the  council.  When 
the  papal  envoys,  Cardinals  Antony  of  Challant  and  Francis 
Zabarella,  who  were  accompanied  by  the  Greek  scholar  Chry- 
solaras,  visited  Sigismund  at  Como  in  October  1413,  they  used 

1  Those  who  do  not  feel  inclined  to  wade  through  the  contemporary  Polish 
and  Hungarian  chronicles,  written  in  mediaeval  Latin,  will  find  a  good  account 
of  the  early  life  of  Sigismund  in  Aschbach's  Geschichte  Kaiser  Sigmunds. 


,  B<,„r,ra  Cttmata    ta~c„.<„r    f.I.Sm,. 

t.Cp&fioh  &™r,;„,r  Sis^r,;. 


PLAN    OF    CITY    i>lr    CONSTANCE    Al     TIME    OF    COUNCIL,     I4I4-I418 


HUS  IN  EXILE  183 

all  their  eloquence  to  persuade  him  to  consent  to  the  meeting 
of  the  council  on  Italian  soil.  Sigismund  had,  however, 
already  decided  that  the  council  should  meet  at  Constance, 
and  not  to  lose  time,  he  published  a  decree  x  dated  October  31, 
1413,  in  which  he  stated  that  the  papal  envoys  had  in  the 
name  of  the  Pope  John  XXIII.  and  with  the  approval  of  King 
Sigismund  convoked  a  general  council  of  the  church  that  was 
to  meet  at  Constance  on  November  1,  1414.  Cossa  was  still 
reluctant,  but  at  a  meeting  with  Sigismund  at  Cremona  at 
Christmas,  1413,  he  gave  his  definitive  consent,  and  even 
promised  to  be  present  at  the  council.  The  meeting  at 
Cremona  has  retained  some  celebrity  because  of  the  alleged 
intention  of  Gabrino  Fondolo,  tyrant  of  Cremona,  to  throw 
the  spiritual  and  secular  rulers  of  the  world  from  the  summit 
of  a  high  tower  to  which  he  had  conducted  them. 

Sigismund  employed  his  great  energy  in  endeavouring  to 
induce  all  countries  to  send  their  representatives  to  the  council. 
France  was  secretly  ill  disposed  to  the  meeting  of  the  council, 
and  indeed  to  Sigismund  who,  abandoning  the  traditional 
policy  of  the  House  of  Luxemburg,  which  was  favourable  to 
France,  was  then  engaged  in  negotiations  with  England.  The 
popular  feeling  was,  however,  at  that  time  so  strongly  in  favour 
of  a  council  that,  largely  in  consequence  of  the  intercession  of 
the  University  of  Paris,  the  rulers  of  France  decided  to  send 
representatives  to  Constance.  England  was  favourable  to 
the  council.  It  was  no  doubt  in  consequence  of  the  reaction 
against  Wycliffe's  teaching  that  the  English  representatives 
assumed  what  would  now  be  called  an  ultramontane  attitude 
at  Constance.  In  every  part  of  Europe  the  coming  council 
was  awaited  with  great  anxiety.  In  view  of  the  hopeless  con- 
dition of  the  church  ruled  by  men  such  as  Cossa,  it  was  hoped 
and  believed  that  a  council  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  would 
re-establish  union  in  the  church  and  also — what  appeared 
almost  more  important — check  the  unspeakable  corruption  of 

1  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  515-518. 


184  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

the  priesthood.     From   the  sources  we   possess  it   does   not 
appear  very  clearly  when  the  negotiations  to  induce  Hus  to 
attend  the  council  began.     As  one  who  was  excommunicated 
he  was  by  canon  law  prohibited  from  attending  a  council. 
His  frequent  -requests  to  appear  before  the  recent  synod  at 
Prague   had  met  with   a  refusal.     It  was,  therefore,  a  very 
serious  step  on  the  part  of  Hus  to  proceed  to  Constance.     Yet 
now,  as  at  every  moment  when  he  believed  that  he  was  obeying 
God's  command,  he  did  not  hesitate.     The  negotiations  con- 
cerning Hus's  journey  to  Constance  were  probably  carried  on 
at  the  castle  of  Krakovec.     Peter  of  Mladenovic,1  who  is  our 
foremost  authority  on  the  last  months  of  the  life  of  Hus, 
writes:  2  "  After  having  come  to  an  agreement  with  Pope  John 
XXIII.  for  the  purpose  that  a  general  council  of  the  church 
should  be  held  at  Constance  in  Suabia,  King  Sigismund  sent 
from  Lombardy  certain  Bohemian  noblemen,  his  councillors 
and  friends,   who  were   to  persuade   Magister  John   Hus  to 
proceed  to  Constance  that  he  might  there  purge  both  himself 
■  and  the  kingdom  of  Bohemia  from  the  infamous  accusation 
(i.e.,  of  heresy).     They   were   to   inform   him   that   the   king 
would  grant  him  a  safe-conduct  which  would  enable  him  to  go 
safely  to  Constance  and  to  return  safely  to  Bohemia."     The 
much-discussed  though  really  very  clear  question  as  to  Hus's 
safe-conduct  will  have  to  be  mentioned  when  referring  to  its 
violation  by  Sigismund.     It  should,  however,  here  already  be 
noted  that  Sigismund  distinctly  guaranteed  Hus's  safe  return 
to  Bohemia,  whatever  might  be  the  decision  of  the  council. 
Hus,  Mladenovic  continues,  having  received  so  great  and  so 
far-reaching  promises,  wrote  to  the  king  that  he  would  proceed 
to  Constance. 

There  were  not  wanting  warning  voices  that  advised  Hus 
to  reconsider  his  decision.     Even  one  of  Sigismund's  envoys, 

1  For  Mladenovic,  see  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  2nd  edition, 
p.  145. 

-  "  Relatio  de  magistri  Joannis  Hus  causa  "  (printed  by  Palacky,  Docu- 
ment a). 


- 


DISTRIBU  1  ION    OF    1  OOD    A  I     (  ONSTANCE 
DURING    THE    COUNCIL,     I4I4     I418 

(From  L's  Chronicle  of  I 


HUS  IN  EXILE  ^5 

Nicholas   Divoky   of   Jemniste — according   to   the   Bohemian 
custom  of  abbreviating  names  he  was  generally   known  as 
Divucek — during    the   final   negotiations   that   took  place   at 
Prague   said   to   Hus:    "  Master,   be  sure  that  thou  wilt  be 
condemned."     A  member  of  the  court  of  one  of  the  most 
perfidious  of  rulers,  Divucek  well  knew  how  easy  it  would 
be  to  Sigismund  and  to  the  council  to  apply  to  Hus  the  then 
generally  accepted  maxim  that  no  faith  should  be  kept  with 
heretics.     Hus  at  this  time,  probably  to  consult  his  friends, 
left  Krakovec  and  again  visited  Prague  for  a  short  time.     Here 
many  of  the  prominent  members  of  the  university  also  en- 
treated him  to  remain  in  Bohemia,  where  he  would  be  safe 
under  the  protection  of  the  nobles  and  the  people.     Many  of 
the  nobles — as  one  of  them  afterwards  declared  at  the  council 
— were  not  only  willing,  but  able  to  defend  Hus  in  their  castles 
against  all  enemies.     Of  the  sympathy  of  King  Venceslas  and 
the  more  open  friendship  of  the  queen,  Hus  felt  sure.     Yet  he 
remained  firm.     He  wrote  several  letters  of  farewell  to  friends, 
one  of  which  has  somewhat  the  form  of  a  last  will.     There  is, 
however,  no  justification  in  suggesting,  as  has  been  sometimes 
done,  that  Hus  believed  from  the  first  that  King  Sigismund 
would  break  his  word.     His  way  lay  through  a  wide  expanse  of 
German   territory,   and  he  knew,  and  even  exaggerated,  the 
hostility  of  the  Germans  to  his  person.     It  was  also  known 
that  the  former  German  members  of  the  University  of  Prague 
were  stirring  up  the  people  against  Hus  and  the  Bohemian 
kingdom.     Hus  being  a  man  of  truly  apostolical  poverty,  it 
now  became  necessary  to  raise  money  to  enable  him  to  under- 
take so  lengthy  a  journey.     Many  of  the  nobles  and  probably 
the  king  and  queen  contributed  to  the  expenses.     The  univer- 
sity, which  considered  him  its  representative  at  the  council, 
also  supplied  some  financial  aid.     The  "  nobles  presented  him 
with  a  comfortable  carriage,  Lord  Pflug  of  Rabstein  gave  him 
a  handsome  horse,  and  another  noble  also  gave  him  a  horse."  1 
1  Dr.  Flajshans,  Mist*  Jan  Hus,  p.  360. 


186  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

On  October  n,  1414,  Hus  left  Prague  accompanied  by  Lord 
Venceslas  of  Duba,  Lord  John  of  Chlum,  whom  King  Sigis- 
mund  had  deputed  to  escort  him,  Peter  of  Mladenovic,  private 
secretary  to  Lord  John,  and  some  attendants.  A  large  crowd, 
including  many  magisters  and  other  members  of  the  univer- 
sity, accompanied  him  to  the  city  gate.  Many  expressed  fears 
that  Hus  would  never  return  to  his  native  country. 
!;/  It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  the  years  1412-1414 
jTfwere  the  years  of  Hus's  greatest  literary  activity.  It  will  be 
well  to  notice  first  his  Bohemian  writings,  which  are  more 
interesting  as  giving  a  clearer  insight  into  the  individuality  of 
the  writer.  The  recent  researches  of  scholars  have  added  so 
largely  to  the  number  of  works  rightly  or  wrongly  attributed 
to  Hus  that  I  shall  here  confine  myself  to  the  mention  of  a 
few  that  are  particularly  valuable.1  To  the  earliest  part  of 
this  period,  if  not  to  a  yet  earlier  date,2  belong  two  treatises 
entitled  Zrcadlo  Hrichuv  (the  Mirror  of  Sin),  an  almost  literal 
translation  of  fhe~woTk;  entitled  Speculum  Peccatoris  that  has 
been  attributed  to  St.  Augustine,  and  a  similar  shorter  work 
entitled  Mensi  Zrcadlo  (the  Smaller  Mirror).  To  the  year 
1412  belong  a  series  of  expositions  (Vyklad)  dealing  consecu- 
tively olthe  faith,  the  commandments,  and  the  Lord's  Prayer  3 
and  a  short  work  entitled  Dcerka  (the  Daughter)  dedicated  to 
one  of  the  pious  women  who  had  taken  up  their  abode  near  the 
Bethlehem  chapel.  An  ancient  and  interesting  tradition 
states  that  the  book  was  dedicated  to  Anezka,  the  daughter  of 
Thomas  of  Stitny.  The  teaching  of  Hus  is  here  quite  in 
accordance  with  that  of  the  Roman  Church.     He  here  and 

1  The  late  Rev.  A.  H.  Wratislaw  in  the  chapter  of  his  John  Hus  entitled 
"  John  Hus  as  a  writer  in  his  native  language,"  refers  to  some  of  the  Bohemian 
works  of  this  period,  though  many  would  not  now  agree  with  his  appreciation 
of  their  relative  value.  In  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature  I  refer  (pp. 
121-131)  to  the  Bohemian  works  of  Hus. 

2  See  Dr.  Flajshans,  Literarni  cinnost  Mistra  JanaHusi  (Literary  Activity 
of  Master  John  Hus).  It  is  not — according  to  Dr.  Flajshans — certain  that 
the  Smaller  Mirror  is  a  work  of  Hus. 

3  My  History  of  Bohemian  Literature  (2nd  ed.,  pp.  123-127)  contains 
translations  from  the  Vvklad. 


HUS  IN  EXILE  187 

everywhere    maintains    the    mediaeval    and    indeed    monkish  i 
theory  of  the  superiority  of  maidenhood  to  the  state  of  a 
matron. 

Of  greater  interest  than  any  of  these  writings  is  the  short 
book  entitled  0  Svatokupectvi  (On  Simony)  written  early  in 
1413 ;  for  it  deals  with  the  real  cause  of  the  Bohemian  troubles 
of  this  period.  The  intense  horror  and  detestation  of  the 
traffic  in  ecclesiastical  titles  and  religious  dignities — enhanced 
by  the  fact  that  both  buyer  and  seller  were  generally  Germans 
— was  really  the  greatest  factor  in  the  religious  upheaval  of 
Bohemia.  This  has  often  been  overlooked  by  those  who  have 
written  on  this  period,  though  it  is  obvious  enough  to  the 
reader  of  the  contemporary  Bohemian  chronicles.  In  close 
connection  with  this  point  arose  the  question  whether  men 
who  had  by  foul  and  unworthy  means  obtained  ecclesiastical 
dignities  could  truly  and  validly  administer  the  sacraments. 
Hus  himself,  as  has  already  been  stated,  held  the  orthodox 
Roman  opinion,  but  the  subject  gave  rise  to  much  discussion, 
which  was  by  no  means  exclusively  caused  by  the  study  of 
Wycliffe's  works.  The  troubles  of  the  schism  had,  of  course, 
increased  the  difficulty  of  judging  what  bishops  and  priests 
could  administer  the  sacraments  validly.  The  papal  secretary 
Collucio,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Margrave  Jodocus  of  Moravia, 
even  stated  that  a  schismatical  or  simoniacal  pope  could  not 
ordain  true  bishops,  and  that  those  who  worshipped  the  sacra- 
ment administered  b}'  a  schismatical  priest  worshipped  an 
idol.1  It  was  for  this  reason  that  the  Hussites  in  the  "  Articles 
of  Prague  "  and  elsewhere  laid  so  great  stress  on  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacrament  by  "  worthy  priests." 

1  "  Quis  nescit  ex  vitiosa  parte  veros  episcopos  esse  non  posse?  et  per 
consequens  veros  deficere  sacerdotes,  veraque  non  habituros  post  aliquid 
temporis  sacramenta,  quos  contigerit  partem  vitiosam  esse  secutos.  .  .  . 
Illi  ergo  qui  fuerint  obedientes  non  vero  pontifici  quamvis  simpliciter  et 
conscientia  non  corrupta,  si  in  aliquem  inciderint  ordinatum  ab  episcopis 
novis  adorantes  hostiam  et  calicem  non  Christi  corpus  et  sanguinem.  sed 
illam  puram  panis  materiam  atque  vini  cum  aqua  mixti  veiut  quoddam 
idolum  adorabunt."  (Letter  printed  by  Martene  et  Durand,  Thesaurus, 
novus  Anecdotortim,  vol.  ii.  pp.  160-161.) 


188  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

It  is  with  this  then  burning  question  that  the  treatise  .on_ 
simony1  deals.  It  was  stated  by  the  adherents  of  all  the  con- 
tending popes  that  their  opponents  were  heretics,  and  at  that 
period,  more  than  at  any  other,  the  accusation  of  heresy  was 
scattered  broadcast  among  the  people.  Hus  desired  to  affirm 
that  simony  also  is  a  form  of  heresy.  Written  at  a  time  when 
Hus  was  incessantly  accused  of  heresy  by  all  those  whom  his 
denunciations  of  simony  displeased,  the  book  has,  of  course, 
an  intensely  personal  note.  In  the  first  chapter  Hus  writes : 
"As  simony  is  heresy,  and  as  the  evil  denounce  good  men  as 
heretics,  I  wish — as  an  admonition  and  confirmation  for  the 
good,  and  also  for  the  correction  of  the  evil — to  define  first  of 
all  what  heresy  is,  that  people  may  know  whether  those  are 
heretics  to  whom  they  give  that  name,  or  whether  they  are 
themselves  tainted  by  heresy. ' '  Hus  then  gives  a  definition  of 
heresy  derived  almost  literally  from  St.  Augustine,  and  iden- 
tical with  the  one  contained  in  his  Super  IV.  Sententiarum* 
In  the  following  chapter  Hus  defines  the  three  sources  from 
which  heresy  springs;  they  are  apostacy,  blasphemy,  and 
simony.  Apostacy  is  committed  by  those  who  forsake  God's 
laws.  Those  are  guilty  of  blasphemy  who  attempt  to  limit 
God's  power,  or  speak  irreverently  of  him,  or  attribute  to 
human  force  things  that  God  alone  can  do;  among  the  latter 
are  the  priests,  who  say  that  they  are  creators  of  God,  that  they 
create  the  body  of  God  whenever  they  wish,  and  that  they 
send  to  hell  whomever  they  will.  Even  such  a  short  extract 
from  this  chapter  conveys  an  idea  of  the  unlimited  power 
which  a  clergy  holding  such  views  necessarily  acquired  over 
an  uneducated  population,  and  of  the  terrible  consequences 
which  such  a  power  wielded  by  immoral  and  unscrupulous 
men  was  likely  to  produce. 

In  the  third  chapter  Hus  writes  of  the  origin  and  develop- 
ment of  simony.     Its  beginnings,  he  tells  us,  date  from  the 

1  I  have  used  Dr.  Novotny's  edition  published  in  1907. 
1  See  Chapter  III. 


HITS  IN  EXILE  i8c> 

time  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  had  "  two  fathers,  one  in  the 
Old  Testament  called  Gehazi,  the  other  in  the  New  Testament 
called  Simon.  The  former  took  gifts  for  the  healing  of  Naa- 
man  of  leprosy,1  the  latter  gave  the  apostles  money,2  wishing 
to  obtain  the  power  of  conferring  the  Holy  Ghost  on  men  by 
laying  their  hands  on  them — but  I  will  now  more  plainly 
describe  the  simonists,  who  are  like  those  sons  who,  having 
had  evil  fathers  before  them,  put  on  their  boots."  3  "  Know 
then,"  Hus  continues,  "  that  as  those  who  follow  Simon  are 
called  Simoniacs  or  Simonists,  thus  the  followers  of  Gehazi  are 
called  Gehazites,  those  of  Balaam  Balaamites,  of  Jeroboam 
Jeroboamites,  of  Judas  Judites."  Hus,  whose  knowledge  of 
Scripture  was  exceptionally  extensive  for  his  time,  enlarges  on 
these  early  simonists  and  then  proceeds  to  more  recent  events. 
He  writes:  "  Thus  this  year  lying,  lascivious,  avaricious  men, 
who  by  their  evil  deeds  disowned  Christ  and  derided  the  true 
path  of  Christ,  have  robbed  the  people  by  false  indulgences, 
imagining  strange  speeches  and  absolutions,  and  granting 
remittance  of  all  sins  and  punishments.  And  these  men  having 
the  support  of  the  masters  (of  the  university)  robbed  the 
people  all  the  more  boldly,  and  lied  as  much  as  they  could. 
But  our  dear  Lord  God  gave  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  the  good  priests  that  they  might  preach  against  these  liars, 
and  to  faithful  laymen  also  (he  gave  it)  that  they  should 
bravely  risk  their  lives 4  and  they  offered  up  three  lives 
(namely),  Martin,  John  and  Stasek  5  who,  because  they  pro- 
tested against  false  preaching,  were  beheaded  in  Prague,  while 
others  were  struck,  whipped  and  cudgelled  in  the  church  of 
Prague  by  the  choir-boys,  and  others  again  cursed,  insulted 
and  imprisoned.     Praise  be  given  to  Thee,  dear  Christ,  that 

1  Kings  ii.  5.  ■  Acts>  viii. 

3  A  colloquial  expression  in  old  Bohemian  signifying  the  following  an 
example  {i.e.  "  walk  in  their  footsteps  "). 

*  In  the  original,  "  necks." 

6  The  names  of  the  three  young  men  who  were  beheaded  by  order  of  the 
magistrates  of  the  old  town  of  Prague.     See  p.  157. 


i9o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Thou  hast  given  Thy  faithful  such  grace  that  they  professed 
Thy  truth." 

In  the  following  chapters  Hus  deals  with  simony  as  it 
appears  in  the  different  ranks  of  the  hierarchy.  He  first— in 
Chapter  IV.— treats  of  the  papacy,  and  begins  by  Refuting  the 
theory  that  it  is  impossible  that  a  pope  should  commit  a  sin 
and  therefore  that  he  should  be  guilty  of  simony.  Hus  then 
denies  that  the  pope  is  the  most  holy  father,  whorrfsin  cannot 
touch;  for  only  one  is  our  most  Holy  Father,  the  Lord  God 
whom  sin  cannot  touch.  Hus  then  proceeds  to  define  in  the 
customary  scholastic  fashion  of  his  time  the  different  manners 
in  which  a  pope  can  commit  simony.  Always,  however, 
mainly  interested  in  the  affairs  of  his  own  country  and  en- 
deavouring to  contribute  to  its  spiritual  welfare,  he  soon  refers 
to  the  manner  in  which  in  Bohemia,  as  in  other  countries, 
papal  nominees,  often  men  of  detestable  reputation,  were 
appointed  to  ecclesiastical  dignities.  "Is  it  not,"  he  writes, 
"  contrary  to  God's  regulations  that  the  pope  should  decree 
that  his  cooks,  porters,  equerries,  footmen,  should  have  first 
claim  on  the  most  important  benefices  even  in  lands  of  which 
they  do  not  know  the  language?  "  This  matter  had  great 
practical  importance  in  Bohemia,  where  at  that  moment 
Roman  nominees  had  even  more  than  in  other  countries  taken 
the  places  of  native  priests.1  In  Chapter  V.  Hus  refers  to 
bishops.  "  A  worthy  bishop,"  he  writes,  "  must  be  of  holy 
life,  called  by  God  through  the  will  of  the  people,  and  without 
having  bestowed  gifts.  When  he  is  called,  let  him  consider 
himself  unworthy;  and  when  he  is  compelled  to  accept,  let 
him  do  so  meekly  for  the  praise  of  God,  for  the  salvation  of  the 
people,  and  his  own.  For  if  he  who  accepts  a  bishopric  is  of 
holy  life,  full  of  learning  and  thus  able  to  instruct  the  people, 
chosen  by  God  through  the  people,  consecrated  and  approved 

1  This  matter  has  been  very  clearly  stated  in  the  Cesky  Historicky  Casopis 
(Bohemian  Historical  Yearbook)  by  Dr.  Krofta  in  a  series  of  articles  to  which 
I  have  already  referred. 


HUS  IN  EXILE 


191 


without  gifts,  then  he  truly  enters  into  (possession  of)  his 
bishopric.  But  how  nowadays  shall  such  a  one,  who  is  worthy, 
be  elected,  and  also  confirmed  by  the  pope?  Sooner  will  the 
bridge  of  Prague  break  down  than  that  any  one  shall  in  this 
holy  manner  obtain  possession  of  the  bishopric  of  Prague." 
This  interesting  passage  proves  that  Hus  had  studied  the 
records  of  the  early  church,  when  men  were  modestly  reluctant 
to  accept  the  office  of  bishop,  and  had  almost  to  be  forced  to 
do  so.  Hus's  ideal  bishop  also  contrasts  strangely  with  the 
bishops  of  his  own  time,  who  were  warriors  and  lawyers  rather 
than  priests.  In  Chapter  VI.  Hus  deals  with,  thp  Tnpnkc;  anrl 
specially—  with__the  mendicant  friars.  Of  these,  like  most 
mediaeval  writers,  he  speaks  unfavourably.  After  referring  to 
St.  Bernard,  on  one  of  whose  works  this  chapter  is,  according 
to  Dr.  Novotny,  partly  founded,  Hus  writes:  "  But  he  who 
has  not  the  books  of  St.  Bernard,  let  him  observe  their  (the 
friars')  deeds,  how  with  their  meals  and  their  servants,  their 
fattening  and  dressing  (their  food),  their  dishes  and  goblets, 
their  drinking  and  their  spoons,  they  surpass  the  lords  of  the 
land.  Driving  in  their  carriages  also  and  riding  on  their 
horses  they  surpass  the  lords  of  the  land  and  the  knights. 
Then  in  feasting  and  banqueting  with  their  friends  and  others, 
who  are  compliant  to  them,  they  lose  (spend)  their  alms  very 
gaily.  And  how  much  do  they  spend  on  the  keep  of  their 
dogs  of  various  breeds  ?  Who  can  write  of  their  foreign  wines 
of  various  fragrance?  St.  Bernard,  a  monk,  describes  to  us 
how  this  one  of  their  wines  tastes  of  wormwood,  that  of  rose- 
mary, that  of  laurel,  that  of  sage,  that  of  elecampane,  that  of 
ginger,  how  sweet  some  are,  and  others  how  fragrant;  and 
these  they  pour  out,  now  from  one  distillery,  now  from  another. 
And  though  thou,  St.  Bernard,  wert  not  in  Bohemia,  I  will 
tell  thee  that  they  (the  friars)  have  also  beer,  both  old  and 
new,  heavy  and  light.  If  unknown  laymen  visit  them,  they 
give  them  this  light  beer,  thinking  that  they  will  believe  that 
they  (the  friars)  also  drink  it,  and  also  that  they  (the  visitors) 


192  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

may  drink  less.  But  if  they  perceive  a  man  of  whom  they 
think  that  he  might  wish  to  rest  (to  be  buried)  with  them  after 
death,  or  of  whom  they  hope  that  he  may  give  them  something, 
then  they  draw  for  him  a  good  pittance,1  and  one  pittance 
follows  another,  and  with  them  a  pittance  signifies  to  drink 
deeply  and  to  feed  well.  Thus  have  these  poor  people  re- 
nounced the  bodily  pleasures  of  this  world  that  there  are  no 
men  who  have  a  more  delightful  dwelling-place  for  their  bodies. 
Kings,  lords,  princes  have  not  always  food  and  drink  so  good, 
and  always  ready.  The  cellars  of  worldly  men  are  sometimes 
empty,  theirs  never.  Kings  and  lords  may  not  find  their  food 
cooked  and  roasted,  and  may  even  lack  bread,  but  for  them 
deliciously  white  bread  is  always  ready." 

In  the  following  two  short  chapters — VIII.  and  IX. — Hus 
discourses  on  simony  among  the  lower  clergy,  and  among  the 
laity.  Chapter  IX.,  one  of  the  most  interesting,  treats  of 
those  who  indirectly  abet  simony,  and  shows  how  difficult  it 
was  at  that  time  to  avoid  committing  that  sin.  Among  those 
here  accused  by  Hus  we  find  also  the  magisters  of  the  univer- 
sity, and  this  affords  to  him  the  opportunity  of  introducing 
references  to  himself  that,  written  with  touching  humility, 
appeal  to  all  readers  of  his  works.  He  writes:  "  Truly  have  I 
in  the  schools  heard  the  magisters  speak  of  humility,  patience, 
poverty,  courage,  and  other  virtues,  and  very  diligently  and 
firmly  did  they  speak,  as  if  nothing  could  be  better,  and  as  if 
they  fulfilled  (possessed)  all  these  virtues;  but  then  in  their 
deeds  I  found  naught  of  these  virtues,  but  a  fulness  of  pride, 
avarice,  impatience,  and  cowardice.  And,  as  dear  Christ 
states,  they  lay  heavy  burdens  on  the  people,  issuing  their 
decrees,  pressing  forward  to  (obtain)  the  highest  dignities  of 
priesthood;  and  if  men  bow  not  before  them  like  before  gods, 
they  wax  angry;    and  if  they  are  not  placed  at  the  highest 

1  The  Bohemian  word  pitancie  is  identical  with  the  English  word  pittance 
in  the  ancient  monastical  sense.  Hus  has  here  made  a  pun  on  the  similarity 
of  this  word  with  the  verb  "  piti  "  (to  drink).  It  is  impossible  to  render 
the  pun  in  English. 


HUS  IN  EXILE 


193 


place  at  table,  they  strangely  mark  their  displeasure,  and  they 
dispute  much  for  the  foremost  place  in  the  schools."  After  a 
reference  to  the  pride  of  the  monk  Marik,  one  of  Hus's  adver- 
saries at  Prague,  Hus  continues  his  reflections  on  the  magisters, 
whom  he  compares  to  the  Pharisees.  He  writes:  "Our  Saviour 
said  that  they  (the  magisters)  love  the  first  places  at  assemblies, 
they  spread  out  the  edges  of  their  robes  and  cloaks  and  tabards 
and  mantles.  Alas!  I  also  had  these  tabards,  robes  with  wide 
sleeves,  capes  lined  with  white  fur;  for,  alas!  thus  have  they 
hedged  in  the  rank  of  magister  that  you  cannot  attain  it  if  you 
have  not  these  garments.  Therefore  to  guard  men  against 
pride  did  Our  Saviour  say  to  his  disciples  and  the  people: 
'  But  be  not  ye  called  Rabbi,  for  one  is  your  master,  even 
Christ.' 1  Of  these  words  St.  Jerome  has  said  that  Christ  thus 
wished  to  check  evil  desires,  so  that  none  might  from  pride 
claim  to  be  called  master.  And  truly  I  do  not  understand  how 
a  man  can  worthily  be  a  master  unless  it  be  that  he  may  have 
a  better  place  to  teach  God's  truth,  and  that  he  may  more 
bravely  speak  the  truth  and  defend  it.  But  I  have  already 
found  that  simple  poor  priests,  poor  laymen,  and  women 
defend  the  truth  more  bravely  than  doctors  of  the  Holy  Writ, 
who  from  fear  flee  from  the  truth  and  dare  not  speak  it.  And 
I,  myself,  alas!  was  he  who  dared  not  sincerely  and  openly 
preach  the  truth.  And  why  are  we  (magisters)  thus?  Be- 
cause we  are  cowardly,  fearing  some  of  us  to  lose  the  praise  of 
the  world,  and  its  favour,  others  (fearing  to  lose)  our  income. 
We  are  as  the  Jewish  priests  of  whom  St.  John  wrote :  '  Among 
the  chief  rulers  many  believed  in  him,  but  because  of  the 
Pharisees,  they  did  not  confess  him,  lest  they  should  be  put 
out  of  the  synagogue.  For  they  loved  the  praise  of  men  more 
than  the  praise  of  God.'  "  2 

The  extreme  conscientiousness  and  the  extreme  humility 
of  Hus  areapparent  in  this  chapter.  He  deeply  repented  the 
natural,  momentary  pleasure  which  the  son  of  the  peasant  of 

1  St.  Matthew  xxiii.  v.  8.  a  St.  John  xii.  42-43. 


194  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Husinec  felt  when  first  arrayed  in  academic  garb,  and  again 
felt  doubtful  whether  he  had  done  his  duty  when  he  left 
Prague  for  Kozi  Hradek. 

The  last  chapter  of  the  treatise  on  simony  endeavours  to 
find  a  remedy  for  the  terrible  abuses  which  had  been  so  power- 
fully described  in  the  previous  ones.  Hus's  suggestions  are 
very  bold,  and  they  must  have  added  greatly  to  the  already 
large  number  of  his  enemies  among  the  Bohemian  clergy. 
Hus  begins  by  expressing  a  somewhat  Utopian  hope  that 
Christianity  would  return  to  the  institutions  of  the  primitive 
church.  "  The  best  way  "  (to  prevent  simony),  he  writes, 
"  would  be  that  men  be  elected  bishops  and  parish  priests 
according  to  God's  will.  Thus  did  the  apostles  act,  having  no 
revelation  as  to  whom  they  should  receive  as  bishop  in  place 
of  Judas.  Referring  to  this,  St.  Jerome^  says:  '  As  so  great 
a  man  as  Moses  was  not  allowed  to  choose  the  priests  of  the 
people  according  to  his  own  sagacity,  or  to  appoint  a  sub- 
stitute, who  would  there  be  among  the  people — who  are  often 
excited  by  rumours,  vain-glory  and  material  advantages — 
who  also  among  the  priests,  who  would  consider  himself  worthy 
(to  be  a  priest  or  bishop)  ?  He  only  to  whom,  after  he  has 
implored  God  and  prayed,  God  manifests  this  wish  that  he 
should  become  a  priest.'  "  Direct  election  by  God  is  therefore, 
according  to  Hus,  the  most  perfect  way  by  which  the  priests 
of  the  Lord  could  be  appointed.  The  Bohemian  brethren  who 
considered  themselves  the  true  successors  of  Hus  actually 
attempted  to  carry  out  this  precept.2  From  these  ideal 
heights  Hus  descends  to  more  matter-of-fact  suggestions.  He 
considered  the  present  system  of  the  appointment  of  bishops 
and  priests  as  a  necessary  evil,  but  thought  that  strict  subjec- 
tion of  the  clergy  to  the  secular  power  would  act  as  a  beneficial 

.        *  According  to  Dr.  Novotny  these  words  are  quoted  literally  from  the 

*  Decretum  of  Gratian. 

aThe  first  priests  of  the  brethren  were  chosen  in  this  manner.  It  was 
believed  that  God's  will  could  be  ascertained  by  the  drawing  of  lots.  See 
my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature  (2nd  edition,  pp.  208-211). 


HUS  IN  EXILE 

control,  and  check  the  sins  and  especially  the  simony  prevalent 
among  the  clergy.  "  As  every  king,"  he  writes,  "  has  of  God 
power  over  his  kingdom  that  he  may  truly  and  justly  rule 
his  kingdom,  and  as  the  priests  are  in  the  kingdom,  the  king 
must  guide  them  in  the  path  of  truth  and  justice;  and  he 
would  not  guide  them  in  the  path  of  truth  and  justice  did  he 
allow  them,  like  negligent  servants,  to  incur  the  wrath  of  the 
Highest  of  Kings;  he  would  not  thus  fulfil  the  duties  of  his 
royal  office." 

I  must  reluctantly  refrain  from  dwelling  longer  on  the 
treatise  0  Svatokupectvi,  to  which  I  have  perhaps  already 
devoted  todnrmcrispace.  It  is,  however,  impossible,  I  think, 
to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  this  treatise.  The  positions 
of  the  contending  parties,  of  the  king  and  his  court,  of  the 
opulent  and  simoniac  clergy,  and  of  the  church-reformers, 
with  whom  was  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  appear  very 
clearly.  We  understand  the  true  causes  of  the  prolonged 
struggle  in  Prague  which  was  delineated  in  the  previous 
chapters.  I  may  here  mention  that  I  entirely  agree  with  a 
remark  made  some  years  ago  by  the  late  Rev.  A.  H.  Wratis- 
law,  who  wrote:  The  treatise  on  simony  would  well  bear 
translation  into  English  as  a  whole. 

That  Hus  was  thoroughly  aware  of  the  importance  of  his 
book,  of  its  boldness,  and  of  the  danger  to  which  it  might 
expose  him,  is  proved  by  its  closing  words.  "  I  have 
written  these  leaflets,"  he  tells  us,  "  knowing  that  I  should 
obtain  through  them  neither  praise  nor  kindness  nor  bodily 
advantage  either  from  avaricious  priests  nor  from  others  who 
are  laymen,  for  I  demand  no  such  things  from  them,  desiring 
only  God's  reward  and  salvation.  And  if  blame  and  torment 
befall  me,  I  have  placed  it  before  my  mind  that  it  is  better  to 
suffer  death  for  the  truth  than  to  obtain  by  flattery  earthly 
reward.  Thus  also  St.  Paul  said:  '  If  I  yet  pleased  men,  I 
should  not  be  the  servant  of  Christ.' l     Understand  then :   if  I 

1  Galatians  i.  10. 


196  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

had  by  flattery  pleased  the  people,  I  should  not  have  been  a 
servant  of  God — therefore  I  avoid  flattery  that  I  may  not 
imperil  the  souls  of  others  and  my  own  by  flattery.  Openly 
and  simply  have  I  set  down  my  speech,  that  I  may  as  far  as  is 
in  my  power  crush  and  weed  out  simony.  Deign  Thou  to  be 
helpful  to  me  in  this  cause,  oh,  merciful  Saviour."  I  am  not, 
I  hope,  prejudiced  as  being  a  countryman  of  Hus  if  I  venture 
to  state  that,  according  to  my  opinion,  few  sublimer  words  have 
ever  been  written  by  the  pen  of  man. 

To  the  year  1413  belongs  also  another  of  Hus's  most  valu- 
able Bohemian  works.  It  may  be  stated  generally  that  the 
treatise  on  Simony,  the  Postilla  to  which  I  shall  now  refer,  and 
•the  Letters  are  the  most  precious  of  Hus's  works  written  in 
his  own  language.  It  is  in  them  that  we  find  the  true  Hus, 
not  in  the  scholastic  and  sometimes  sophistical  controversies 
with  Stokes,  Palec,  and  others.  The  Postilla,  finished  by  Hus 
on  October  28,  1413,  was  not  actually  the  last  even  of  his 
Bohemian  works.  It  was,  however,  the  last  of  his  more 
extensive  and  striking  writings  and  was  therefore  afterwards 
greatly  venerated  as  his  "  testament  "  or  "  last  will."  A 
particular  veneration  for  the  Holy  Scriptures  was  characteristic 
of  Hus  as  of  Matthew  of  Janov  and  all  Bohemian  church- 
reformers.  The  Bible  was,  however,  very  little  known  to  the 
Bohemian  people,  and  its  study  was  by  no  means  encouraged 
by  the  priests.  The  Postilla  is  a  collection  of  sermons  on  the 
gospel  for  every  Sunday  and  more  important  holy  days  of  the 
year.  Hus  writes  in  his  introduction:  "  I  resolved  for  the 
glory  of  God,  and  for  the  salvation  of  the  faithful  Bohemians, 
who  wish  to  know  and  to  fulfil  God's  will,  briefly  to  expound 
with  God's  help  the  gospel  for  all  the  Sundays  of  the  year.  I 
desire  that  those  who  read  or  listen  be  saved,  that  they  may 
beware  of  sin,  love  God  above  all  things,  love  one  another, 
increase  in  virtue  and  pray  to  the  Lord  God  for  me,  sinner." 
Hus  then  alludes  to  the  ignorance  of  the  Bible  that  was  general 
among  the  Bohemians.     "  As  the  people,"  he  writes,  "  gener- 


HUS  IN  EXILE  I97 

ally  have  no  gospel  written  in  Bohemian,  and  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  an  exposition  without  a  foundation  (previous  know- 
ledge), therefore  will  I  always  place  the  gospel  first  (at  the 
beginning)  of  the  exposition."  The  Bohemians  thus  became 
acquainted  with  at  least  a  small  part  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
which  was  read  out  to  them  in  their  own  language. 

Hus  in  this  work,  and  indeed  generally  when  he  is  not 
writing  according  to  the  scholastic  method,  shows  a  lightness 
of  touch  and  a  sometimes  almost  playful  manner  which  render 
the  Postilla  very  attractive.  Since  the  Bohemians  have 
obtained  at  least  a  certain  amount  of  religious  liberty,  the  book 
has  been  frequently  published.1  It  is  very  difficult  to  give 
short  extracts  from  a  book  such  as  the  Postilla,  but  I  think 
that  a  quotation  from  the  exposition  of  the  gospel  for  Palm 
Sunday  -  will  give  an  idea  of  the  interest  and  value  of  the  book. 
After  quoting  the  gospel  of  the  day,3  Hus  writes :  "  Our  gracious 
Saviour,  approaching  Jerusalem  for  our  salvation,  as  to-day, 
showed  great  humility,  great  mercy;  and  entering  the  temple 
he  showed  humility,  mercy,  and  justice.  Humility  because 
though  being  the  Lord  and  King  of  the  whole  world  he  rode 
simply  on  an  ass,  to  condemn  worldly  pride.  Mercy  he 
showed  because,  coming  to  Jerusalem  and  knowing  what 
would  befall  its  people  both  in  spirit  and  in  body,  he  cried 
bitterly  till  he  sobbed,  and  unable  to  finish  his  speech  said: 
'  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  if  thou  hadst  known,  even  thou  ' — he 
did  not  through  tears  finish  his  speech,  but  cried. 

"  In  the  temple  also  he  showed  mercy  when  the  blind  and 
lame  came  up  to  him,  and  he  healed  them.  Justice  he  showed 
when  with  a  whip  he  drove  the  priests  and  merchants  out  of 
the  temple,  saying  to  them:  'It  is  written.  My  house  shall 
be  called  the  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of 
thieves.'  "     After  again  referring  to  the  gospel  of  the  day,  Hus 

1  I  have  used  the  edition  published  by  Dr.  Flajshans,  who  has  modernised 
the  Bohemian  of  Hus. 

-Pp.  121-127  of  Dr.  Flajshans's  edition. 
3  St.  Matthew  xxi. 


198  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

continues:  "  Behold  this  is  what,  word  by  word,  the  pope,  the 
bishop,  the  parish  priest  must  read  to-day  when  they  stand  at 
the  church  gates  in  procession,  that  is,  in  the  ordered  march  of 
the  deacons  and  the  rest  of  the  people.  And  I  know  not  how 
the  pope  could  well  read  out  this,  if  he  can  read,  or  a  bishop; 
for  there  are  many  popes,  archbishops,  cardinals,  bishops, 
canons,  and  parish  priests  who  know  not  how  to  read  in  books. 
How  also  could  (such  a  one)  wish  to  read  (the  gospel)  when 
everything  (contained  in  it)  would  be  against  him  ?  Christ  on 
an  ass  and  he  on  a  large  white  stallion  or  horse,  with  a  golden 
bit,  the  bit,  girths  and  harness  adorned  with  gold  and  precious 
stones;  coloured  tassels  float  from  his  hat  down  to  the  ground, 
and  the  caparison  which  covers  his  steed  trails  to  the  earth; 
before  him  they  drive  an  ass  or  mule,  which  carries  the  body 
of  Christ *  and  sometimes  feeds  on  the  grass  in  the  fields ; 
meanwhile  they  heed  not  Christ  but  kneel  before  the  pope. 
They  carry  a  baldachin  over  him,  call  him  the  most  holy, 
throng  round  him  begging  for  prebends  and  kissing  his  feet,  if 
the  mercenaries  clad  in  armour,  who  with  silver  clubs  drive 
away  the  poor,  permit  it.  And  he  (the  pope)  sits  on  his  war- 
horse  smiling  that  he  has  so  much  praise.  And  our  dear, 
tranquil,  meek  Redeemer  rides  onward  on  his  mule  weeping 
bitterly."  Hus  gives  here  a  very  striking  sketch  of  the  ap- 
pearance and  surroundings  of  a  great  warrior-priest  of  his 
time.  If  we  remember  that  the  reigning  pope  of  the  time  was 
the  diavolo  cardinale,  the  contrast  between  the  haughtiness  of 
the  pope  and  the  meekness  of  Jesus  Christ  contained  in  this 
passage  has  a  touch  of  very  bitter  though  perhaps  uninten- 
tional irony.  Here,  as  ever,  Hus  expresses  the  craving  for 
the  return  to  the  simplicity  of  the  primitive  church,  which 
was  the  ideal  of  most  noble  minds  of  his  time.  The  ideal  may 
have  been  delusory  and  unattainable ;  it  was  certainly  noble. 
He  who  attempts  to  outline  the  life  of  Hus  must  allude  to 

1  Opulent  priests  at  this  period  were  in  the  habit  of  having  the  sacrament 
carried  before  them  in  the  manner  described  here. 


HUS  IN  EXILE  i99 

all  those  of  his  works  that  are  important,  or  characteristic  of 
the  writer.  I  cannot,  therefore,  omit  the  strange  little  book 
entitled,  Writings  against  tlie  Priest-Kitchcnmastcv .  The  work, 
written,  as  the  title  indicates,  in  a  popular  manner,  met  with 
great  favour,  and  has  been  mentioned  oftener  than  it  deserves. 
Written  in  1414,  it  was  first  printed  in  1509,  at  an  earlier 
period  than  almost  any  other  work  of  Hus.1  It  certainly 
gives  evidence  of  the  occasional  smallness  of  a  great  mind.  It 
appears  that  Hus,  during  his  exile,  perhaps  while  a  guest  at 
the  castle  of  one  of  the  Bohemian  nobles,  met  a  "  priest- 
kitchenmaster  "  (or  steward  of  the  kitchen),  who  is  otherwise 
unknown  to  us.  The  man,  who  had  given  up  his  ecclesiastical 
rank  to  take  a  situation  in  a  kitchen,  affronted  Hus,  stating 
that  "  he  was  worse  than  any  devil."  Hus  bore  down  on  the 
unfortunate  cook  with  all  the  weight  of  his  scholastic  skill. 
He  advances  fifteen  arguments  to  prove  that  he  was  not  worse 
than  the  devil,  one  of  them  being  that  the  devil  had  sinned  for 
6005  years,  while  he  (Hus)  had  not  sinned  for  fifty  years,  not 
having  as  yet  attained  that  age.  Incidentally — and  this  is 
the  only  real  interest  of  the  book — Hus  shows  how  largely 
the  priests  then  occupied  secular  offices.  '  The  priests,"  he 
writes,  "  now  strive  to  obtain  a  hold  on  all  worldly  offices, 
where  they  smell  money.  We  find  priests  as  burgraves,  priests 
at  the  register  offices,  priests  as  judges,  priests  as  estate-agents, 
priests  as  cooks,  priests  as  writers,  and  if  the  beadle's  work 
were  not  so  hard  and  so  ill-paid,  we  would  find  priests  as 
beadles  also."  Hus  then  somewhat  uncharitably  reminds  his 
adversary  of  the  proverb  that  there  is  no  shorter  walk  than 
that  from  the  kitchen  to  the  beer-cellar. 

Of  the  Latin  writings  of  Hus  that  belong  to  this  period, 
the  most  important  is  the  treatise  De  Ecclesja._  It  was  the 
principal  cause  or  rather  pretext  of  his  condemnation  at  Con- 
stance.  J he-book  is  an  abridgment  ol  the  work  of  Wvcliffe ' 

1  Printed  in  Erben's  Husi  Sebrane  spisy  ceske  (Hus's  selected   Bohemian 
works),  vol.  iii.  pp.  241-254. 


200  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

that  bears  the  same  name,  and  its  last  chapters  are  also  largely- 
grounded  on  Wycliffe's  treatise  De  Potestate  Papae.  It  is  not 
only  certain  that  Hus  differed  from  Wycliffe  on  several  dog- 
matic subjects — being  nearer  to  the  teaching  of  the  Roman 
Church  than  the  English  reformer  was — but  we  have  also  no 
proof  that  he  considered  all  the  statements  contained  in  the 
treatise  De  Ecclesia  as  absolute  and  indisputable  truths.  He 
never  asserted  this,  and  when  questioned  on  this  subject  at 
the  Council  of  Constance,  declared  that  he  would  withdraw 
whatever  might  be  contrary  to  the  true  faith,  if  valid  evidence 
from  Scripture  were  placed  before  him.  No  such  discussion 
was  allowed  to  take  place.  The  members  of  the  council  in- 
terrupted Hus  with  loud  threats  and  cries  and  silenced  him. 
The  condemnation  of  Hus  was  for  the  council  a  foregone  con- 
clusion, and  as  the  treatise  De  Ecclesia  contained  sentences  of 
Wycliffe  that  had  already  been  declared  heretical,  the  treatise 
was  the  safest  weapon  to  bring  about  the  death  of  Hus. 

The  keynote  of  the  treatise.  De-  Ecclesia  is  the  theory  of 
predestination,  but  as  will  have  to  be  noted  when  dealing  with 
the  trial  of  Hus,  it  is  not  certain  that  his  views  differed  widely 
from  those  of  the  Roman  Church  at  the  point  of  development 
which  they  had  then  attained.  The  theory  of  predestination 
had  undoubtedly  by  both  Wycliffe  and  Hus  been  adopted 
from  St.  Augustine.  In  some  cases  the  views  expressed  by 
St.  Augustine  do  not  differ  widely  from  those  contained  in 
Hus's  treatise  De  Ecclesia.1  On  the  subject  of  predestination, 
as  on  almost  all  more  important  points,  Hus  was  not  allowed 
freely  to  express  his  views  at  Constance ;  but  it  is  evident  that 
he  firmly  believed  that  his  views  on  this  subject  were  not 
opposed  to  those  of  the  Roman  Church.     He  relied  on  his 

1  Compare  the  following  passage  from  St.  Augustine  (De  praedestinatione, 
34) :  "  Electi  sunt  ante  mundi  constitutionem  ea  praedestinatione  in  qua 
Deus  sua  future  facta  praescivit;  electi  sunt  autem  de  mundo  ea  vocatione, 
qua  Deus  id  quod  praedestinavit,  implevit.  Quos  enim  praedestinavit  ipsos 
et  vocavit  ilia  scilicet  vocatione  secundum  propositum  von  ergo  alios,  sed 
quos  praedestinavit  ipsos  et  vocavit  nee  alios  sed  quos  praedestinavit,  vocavit 
justificavit  ipsos  et  glorificavit,  illo  utique  fine,  qui  non  habet  finem." 


HUS  IN  EXILE  201 

studies  of  the  works  of  St.  Augustine.  A  man  of  great 
humility  and  simplicity,  he  little  thought  that  St.  Augustine 
himself  was  little  in  favour  with  the  churchmen  of  that  day, 
who  were  statesmen,  lawyers,  warriors,  anything  but  priests.' 

The  principal  ideas  contained  in  the  treatise  De  Ecclesia 
may  be  briefly  summarised  thus:    All  men  are  divided  into 
two  classes,   those   who  are — either  conditionally  or  uncon- 
ditionally— predestined    (predestinati)    to    eternal    bliss,    and 
those  who  are  foreknown  (presciti)  to  damnation.     The  mass 
of   the  predestinati  form  the  true  Holy  Catholic  Church,  but 
the  church  as  at  present  constituted  includes  the  presciti  as 
well  as  the  predestinati .     Of  the  true  church  Christ  is  the  only 
head.     As  man  He  is  "  head  of  the  church  within  it  "  {caput 
intrinsecum),  as  God  He  is  its  "  head  without  "  (caput  extrin- 
secum).     Christ  is  the  true  Roman  pontiff,  the  high  priest,  and 
the  bishop  of  souls.     The  apostles  did  not  call  themselves 
"  Holy  Father  "  or  "  Head  of  the  Church,"  but  servant  of  God 
and  servant  of  the  church.     A  change  came  with  the  "  dona- 
tion   of    Constantine." 2     Thenceforth    the    pope    considered 
himself  as  head  (capitaneus)  of  the  church  and  Christ's  vicar 
upon  earth.     It   is  not,   however,   certain   that   the   pope  is 
Christ's  successor  in   this  world.     Only  then  is  he  Christ's 
representative  and  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  only  then 
are  the  cardinals  successors  of  the  apostles,  when  they  follow 
the  examples  of  faith,  modesty,  and  love  which  St.  Peter  and 
the  apostles  gave.     Many  popes  and  cardinals  have  not  done 
this,  and  indeed  many  saintly  men,  who  never  were  popes, 
were  truer  successors  of  the  apostles  than,  for  instance,  the 
present  pope  (John  XXIII.)     St.  Augustine  did  more  for  the 
welfare  of  the  church  than  many  popes,  and  studied  its  doc- 

1  This  interesting  subject  into  which  I  cannot  enter  is  very  clearly  ex- 
pounded by  Dr.  Harnack  (Dogmengeschichte,  iii.  pp.  434-439).  Dr.  Harnack 
writes:  "  Die  Geschichte  der  Kirchenlehre  im  Abendlande  ist  eine  vielfach 
verdeckte  Geschichte  des  Kampfes  gegen  Augustin." 

2  Hus  of  course  believed  in  the  authenticity  of  the  "  donatio  "  as  did  all 
mediaeval  writers  before  its  exposure  by  Laurentius  Valla. 


202  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

trines  more  profoundly  than  any  cardinal  from  the  first  to  the 
last.  If  pope  and  cardinals  give  their  attention  to  worldly 
affairs,  if  they  scandalise  the  faithful  by  their  ambition  and 
avarice,  then  are  they  successors  not  of  Christ,  not  of  Peter. 
not  of  the  apostles,  but  of  Satan,  of  Antichjistr-^f  Judas 
Iscariot.  It  is  not  certain  that  the  pope  lsTeafiy^fche  head  of 
the  church ;  he  cannot  even  be  sure  that  he  is  not  a  prescitus, 
and  therefore  no  member  of  the  true  church  at  all.  St.  Peter 
erred  even  after  he  had  been  called  by  Christ.  Pope  Leo  was 
a  heretic  and  Pope  Gregory  (XII.)  was  but  recently  con- 
demned by  the  Council  of  Pisa.  It  is  a  popular  fallacy  to 
imagine  that  a  pope  is  necessary  to  rule  the  church.  We  must 
be  thankful  to  God  that  He  gave  us  His  only  son  to  rule  over 
the  church,  and  He  would  be  able  to  direct  it,  even  if  there 
were  no  temporal  pope,  or  if  a  woman  occupied  the  papal 
throne.1  As  with  the  pope  and  the  cardinals,  so  with  the 
prelates  and  the  clergy  generally.  There  is  a  double  clergy, 
that  of  Christ,  and  that  of  Antichrist.  The  former  live  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  God,  the  latter  seek  only  worldly  advantage, 
Not  every  priest  is  a  saint,  but  every  saint  is  a  priest.  Faith- 
ful Christians  are,  therefore,  great  in  the  church  of  God,  but 
worldly  prelates  are  among  its  lowest  members,  and  may 
indeed,  should  they  be  presciti,  not  be  members  of  the  church 
at  all. 

Of  the  other  Latin  works  that  belong  to  this  period,  in 
which — as  already  mentioned — Hus's  literary  activity  was 
greatest,  only  a  few  can  be  mentioned.  Foremost  among 
them,  mainly  because  of  its  great  historical  interest,  is  Hus's 
Appeal  from  the  Pope  to  Jesus  Christ,2  to  which  I  have  already 
referred.3  To  the  haughty  and  worldly  clergy  of  the  time 
it  appeared  both  absurd  and  insolent,  and  every  mention  of 

1  An  allusion  to  the  fable  of  Pope  Joan. 

2"  Appellatio  M.  Joannis  Hus  a  sententiis  pontificis  Romani  ad  Jesum 
Christum  supremum  Judicem  "  (printed  Hus  Opera,  171 5,  vol.  i.  pp.  22-23, 
and  more  correctly  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  464-466). 

*  See  p.  160. 


HUS  IN  EXILE  203 

the  document  was  at  Constance  received  with  jeers  and  deri- 
sion. With  the  articles  derived  from  Wycliffe's  works,  which 
Hus  was,  rightly  or  wrongly,  stated  to  have  accepted  in  their 
entirety,  and  the  ludicrously  untrue  and  wicked  statement 
that  Hus  had  declared  that  he  was  one  of  the  persons  of  the 
divinity,  the  appeal  was  the  document  by  which  the  council 
was  mostly  influenced  when  it  pronounced  sentence  on  Hus. 
This  is  a  striking  proof  of  the  unacknowledged  and  perhaps 
unconscious  scepticism  which  prevailed  among  the  rich  pre- 
lates whose  influence  directed  the  deliberations  at  Constance. 
Hus's  profound  piety  is  evident  in  every  line  of  his  appeal. 
He  confidently  appeals  to  "  the  omnipotent  God,  the  first  and 
last  refuge  of  the  oppressed,  the  Lord  who  will  preserve  the 
truth  in  all  eternity."  Hus  then  quotes  the  examples  of  Christ 
himself,  St.  Chrysostomus,  Bishops  Andrew  of  Prague  and 
Robert  of  Lincoln  as  precedents  for  his  direct  appeal  to  God.1 
He  then  begs  all  faithful  in  Christ,  particularly  the  princes, 
barons,  knights,  citizens,  and  all  other  inhabitants  of  the 
Bohemian  kingdom,  to  pity  him,  who  had  been  unjustly 
struck  down  by  excommunication  on  the  instigation  of  his 
enemy,  Michael  de  causis.  Pope  John  XXIII.  had  decreed 
this  punishment  without  even  granting  a  hearing  to  Hus's 
representatives,  a  favour  which  should  not  even  be  refused 
to  Jew,  pagan,  or  heretic.  Hus  ends  by  again  appealing  to 
the  "  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  justest  judge,  who  knows,  pro- 
tects, and  rewards  all  men  whose  cause  is  just."  Though  one 
of  Hus's  shortest  works,  the  Appeal  is,  because  of  its  historical 
interest,  one  of  the  best  known.  We  therefore  possess  very 
numerous  manuscripts  of  the  treatise,  and  it  has  been  fre- 

1  "  .  .  .  ad  Deum  appello,  committens  sibi  causam  raeam,  salvatoris 
Jesu  Christi  sequens  vestigia,  sicut  sanctus  et  magnus  patriarcha  Constanti- 
nopolitanus  Joannes  Chrysostomus  a  duplici  episcoporum  et  clericorum 
concilio,  et  beati  in  spe  episcopi,  Andreas  Pragensis  et  Robertus  Linconiensis 
episcopus  a  papa  ad  supremum  et  justissimum  judicem,  qui  nee  timore  con- 
cutitur,  nee  amore  flectitur,  nee  munere  curvatur,  nee  falsis  decipitur  testibus, 
injnriose  oppressi  humi]iter  et  salubriter  appellarunt." 


204  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

quently  printed  and  translated  into  Bohemian,  German, 
English,  and  French. 

The  Appellatio  dates  from  August  141 2,  and  almost  at  the 
same  time  Hus  first  wrote  a  short  treatise,  which  he  afterwards 
submitted  to  the  Council  of  Constance,  and  which  in  conse- 
quence has  become  known  as  his  protest  to  the  council.1 
Hus  frequently  refers  in  his  other  writings  to  this  brief  docu- 
ment, which  is  a  short  confession  of  faith.  He  repeatedly 
affirms  in  it  that  he  is  a  faithful  member  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  the  head  and  bridegroom  of  the  holy  church 
which  he  redeemed,  and  that  he  never  had  maintained  and 
never  would  maintain  any  doctrine  that  was  contrary  to  the 
truth,  and  that  he  was  ready  to  lay  down  his  life  for  the  law 
of  Christ. 

Incessantly  attacked  as  Hus  was  by  opponents  who  were 
largely  influenced  by  personal  and  egotistical  motives,  he 
naturally  became  engaged  in  frequent  polemics.  This  applies 
to  this  period  also,  though  not  so  exclusively  as  to  the  previous 
one.  Of  the  polemical  works  written  between  1412  and  1414 
I  will  only  mention  two.  One  of  these  is  the  treatise  entitled 
Replica  Contra  Pr&dicatorem  Plznensem  (A  Reply  to  the 
Preacher  of  Plzen).  It  is  very  interesting  as  showing  what 
outrageous  pretensions  the  Bohemian  clergy  raised  at  this 
period.  They  explain  to  a  great  extent  the  stern  disapproval 
and  dislike  of  priests  shown  by  many  genuinely  pious 
Bohemians  at  this  time.  The  friends  of  Hus  informed  him 
that  a  preacher  at  Plzen  had  in  his  sermons  raised  strange — 
to  a  modern  mind  they  appear  blasphemous — claims  on  behalf 
of  the  clergy.  The  priest  had  stated,  among  other  things, 
that  the  worst  priest  was  better  than  the  best  layman,2  and 
that  a  priest  when  officiating  was  the  father  of  God  and  the 

1  Printed  in   Hus   Opera,   171 5,   vol.  i.   p.    13,  and  Palacky,  Documenta, 
p.  267. 

2  Tertio  praedicavit  quod  pessimus  Sacerdos  est  melior  optimo  Laico." 
(Hus  Opera,  1715,  vol.  i.  p.  179.) 


HUS  IN  EXILE  205 

creator  of  God's  body.1  Hus  then  drew  attention  to  a  book, 
entitled  Stella  Clericonum,  which  was  then  widely  read  by 
the  clergy.  The  book  contained  even  more  outrageous  state- 
ments than  those  mentioned  before.  Thus  the  superiority  of 
priests  over  the  Virgin  Mary  was  affirmed.2  Hus  indignantly 
repudiated  these  pretensions  of  the  clergy,  which  he  rightly 
stigmatised  as  being  blasphemous.  This  little  known  polemi- 
cal treatise  to  a  great  extent  explains  the  strong  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  which  we  find  in  the 
writings  of  many  Bohemian  church-reformers,  though  not  in 
those  of  Hus.  Though  greatly  disapproving  of  claims  such 
as  those  mentioned  above,  Hus  always  accepted  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation  as  taught  by  the  Roman  Church. 

The  only  other  polemical  work  of  this  period  which  I  shall 
mention  is  Hus's  Answer  to  the  Writings  of  Stanislas.  Stanislas 
of  Znoymo  had  at  the  beginning  of  the  Bohemian  movement 
been  a  favourer  of  church-reform  and  a  personal  friend  of  Hus. 
He  shared  the  latter's  admiration  of  the  writings  of  Wycliffe, 
and  accepted  the  theories  of  the  English  church-reformer  far 
more  unconditionally  than  Hus  ever  did.  Stanislas  several 
times  defended  the  famous  articles  of  Wycliffe  before  the 
University  of  Prague.  He  afterwards  entirely  changed  his 
views  and  became,  with  Palec  and  the  infamous  Michael  de 
causis,  one  of  Hus's  bitterest  enemies.  It  was,  of  course,  the 
principal  task  of  these  enemies  to  maintain  that  Hus  had 
expressed  heretical  opinions,  and  that  they  attacked  him  for 
this  reason,  not  because  he  blamed  the  evil  life  of  the  Bohemian 
priests.  Stanislas  had  written  a  book,  known  from  its  opening 
words  as  Alma  Venerabilis.  This  book  has  not  been  pre- 
served and  we  can  only  judge  of  its  contents  by  Hus's  refuta- 
tion.    It  is  certain  that  in  his  work  Stanislas  dealt  largely 

1  "  Articulus  secundus  ponit  quod  Sacerdos  postquam  officiat  est  pater 
Dei  et  creator  corporis  Dei."      (Hits  Opera,  1715,  vol.  i.  p.  181.) 

2  "  Unde  assumpto  mendacio  arguunt  (the  priests)  sic:  Si  virgo  Maria  est 
beata,  vel  digna  quia  semel  Christum  genuit,  beatior  vel  dignior  est  quilibet 
sacerdos,  qui  eum  saepe  creavit,  et  potest  creare  quando  vult."  (Ibid.  p.  182.) 


206  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

with  the  power  and  authority  of  the  pope,  which  he  appears 
to  have  defined  in  a  manner  similar  to  that  of  the  most  extreme 
modern  ultramontanes.  His  opinions  were  thus  in  direct 
opposition  to  those  of  Hus.1  As  Hus  very  openly  stated, 
Stanislas  was  to  a  great  extent  influenced  by  fear.  Hus  did 
not  omit  to  draw  attention  to  the  strange  contrast  between 
Stanislas's  former  exaggerated  praise  of  Wycliffe  and  his 
present  equally  exaggerated  denunciations  of  the  English 
divine.  Replying  to  Stanislas's  panegyric  of  the  papal  power, 
Hus  naturally,  though  perhaps  hardly  fairly,  alluded  to  the 
infamous  character  of  Pope  John  XXIII.,  who  then  held  the 
dignity  of  pontiff.  After  denying  that  it  could  be  proved 
from  Scripture  that  God  had  given  unlimited  power  to  a  pope 
chosen  at  an  election  influenced  by  the  favour  of  man,  fear, 
and  cupidity,  Hus  challenges  Stanislas  to  prove  John  XXIII. 's 
claim  to  the  throne  "  by  the  sanctity  of  his  life  and  of  his 
deeds,  not  by  his  desire  for  the  comforts  and  honours  of  the 
world,  not  by  the  fulminations  of  terrible  censures  to  show  his 
power,  not  by  the  plundering  of  the  subject  fold,  not  by 
extortion  and  simony;  for  Christ  hath  said:  Ye  shall  know 
them  by  their  fruits."  2  The  book  generally  somewhat  recalls 
the  treatise  De  Ecclesia.  We  meet  here  again  with  the  de- 
fence of  the  claim  of  the  temporal  power  to  control  the  papacy 

1  Stanislas — quoted  by  Hus — stated  that  the  pope  was  the  head  of  the 
church  "  in  quo  capite  est  fontalis  et  capitalis  plenitudo  ecclesiasticae 
potestatis  supra  terram  propter  quod  illud  caput  omnes  alias  simul  super 
terram  dignitates  officiarias,  ecclesiasticas  et  seculares,  Patriarchales,  Episco- 
pales,  Sacerdotales,  Clericales,  Magistrales,  Imperiales,  Regales,  Ducales, 
Marchionales,  Comitales,  Baronales,  Militares,  Consulares,  etc.,  in  dignitate 
transcendit  innumerabiliter,  in  profunditate  sicut  fons,  in  altitudine  sicut 
caput,  in  latitudine  sicut  alveus."  Responsio  ad  Scripta  Stanislai  (Hus 
Opera,  17 15,  vol.  i.  p.  342). 

1 "  Non  sufhcit  doctori  (Stanislas)  humana  electio,  quae  ex  favore  humano, 
Timore  vel  cupidine  processit,  imo  claudicat  doctoris  positio,  nisi  ipsam 
stabilitat  a  posteriori  scilicet  ex  vitae  et  operum  sanctitate  ipsius  Joannis, 
non  ex  aspiratione  ad  seculi  commodum  vel  honorem,  nee  ex  fulminatione 
censurae  terrificae  ad  ostendendam  dominationem,  quam  Petrus  sequendo 
Christum  prohibet,  nee  ex  tonsione  gregis  subjecti  per  temporalium  extor- 
sionem,  nee  ex  fomento  publicanatus  vel  Simoniae.  .  .  .  Cum  dicat  Christus, 
Dominus  Joan,  10,  Operibus  credite ;  et  Matth.  7,  A  fructibus  eorum 
cognoscitis  eos."     (Ibid.  p.  342.) 


HUS  IN  EXILE  207 

and  the  church.  They  were  the  same  views  that  had  ap- 
peared so  prominently  in  the  writings  of  Marsiglio  of  Padua 
and  of  the  other  theologians  of  the  court  of  Louis  of  Bavaria, 
as  well  as  in  those  of  Wycliffe.  We  find  again  in  this  con- 
troversial work  of  Hus  allusions  to  the  two  great  fables  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  the  one  papal,  the  other  anti-papal.  I  refer  to 
the  "  donation  of  Constantine  "  and  the  tale  of  the  Popess 
Joan,  whom  Hus  calls  "  Agnes."  Hus  here  again  affirms  that 
Jesus  Christ,  not  the  pope,  is  the  head  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
In  this  mass  of  argument  founded  on  the  writings  of  earlier 
theologians,  we  meet  here  and  there  with  opinions  very  char- 
acteristic of  Hus,  who  always  wished  to  be  a  moralist  rather 
than  a  theologian.  Thus,  when  animadverting  on  the  evil 
choice  often  made  by  popes  when  appointing  bishops,  he 
writes:1  "Christ,  the  bridegroom  of  the  church,  would  far 
better  and  more  readily  choose  for  the  people  of  the  Bohemian 
nation  a  bishop  learned  in  its  law,  able  to  preach  the  gospel  in 
Bohemian,  one  living  soberly,  chastely,  piously,  and  justly." 

1  Hus  Opera,  1715,  vol.  i.  p.  348. 


CHAPTER  VII 

HUS   AT   CONSTANCE 

Hus  and  his  companions,  who  had  left  Prague  on  October  n, 
1414,  were  joined  on  their  journey  at  Plzen  (Pilsen)  by  Lord 
Henry  of  Chlum,  surnamed  Lacembok,  who  appears  to  have 
been  sent  by  King  Venceslas  as  a  protector  of  Hus,  and  by 
John  of  Rejnstein,  surnamed  "  Kardinal."  John  of  Rejn- 
stein,  a  parish  priest  of  Prague  and  a  great  friend  of  Hus,  had, 
with  Lord  John  of  Chlum,  undertaken  to  represent  at  the 
council  the  University  of  Prague.  Mainly  through  the  in- 
fluence of  Gerson  and  Cardinal  d'Ailly  they  obtained  no  hear- 
ing, and  the  University  of  Prague  was,  like  King  Venceslas, 
unrepresented  at  Constance.  The  Bohemians  passed  the 
frontier  of  their  country  at  Barnau  and  arrived  at  the  free 
imperial  city  of  Nuremberg  on  October  19.  On  their  way 
through  German  territory  they  were  everywhere  well  received 
by  the  people,  who  saw  in  Hus  the  champion  of  church-reform, 
which  all  thoughtful  men  and  the  worthier  members  of  the 
clergy  also  desired.  The  difference  of  nationality  proved  no 
barrier,  and  it  may  here  be  mentioned  that  nothing  can  be 
less  true  than  the  ancient  statement  which  accuses  Hus  of 
having  been  an  enemy  of  the  Germans  generally.  It  is  certain 
that  Hus  disliked  the  Germans  in  Bohemia  who  had  taken 
possession  of  most  of  the  ecclesiastical  benefices  and  other 
important  appointments  in  his  country,  while  they — not  only 
at  the  time  of  Hus — looked  down  on  the  Bohemians  as  intel- 
lectually their  inferiors.  Hus's  views  on  this  question  have 
already  been  mentioned,  and  I  shall  again  have  to  refer  to 
them.  The  feelings  of  the  Bohemians  of  this  period  were 
somewhat  similar  to  those  which  the  Italians  of  the  earlier 

208 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  209 

part  of  the  nineteenth  century  entertained  towards  the 
tedcschi,  who  were  considered  as  intruders.  When  Italy 
became  free  the  hatred  of  Germans  gradually  ceased. 

Of  Hus's  stay  at  Nuremburg,  Mladenovic,  his  faithful  com- 
panion on  his  last  journey,  writes:1  "When  he  (Hus)  then 
arrived  at  Nuremberg  with  the  lords,  whom  I  have  mentioned, 
after  they  had  dined,  some  magister,  I  think  he  was  one 
Albert,  parish  priest  of  St.  Sebaldus,  came  to  them  saying 
that  he  wished  to  discourse  with  them  in  a  friendly  manner. 
After  he  (Hus)  had  consented,  some  other  priests  came,  among 
whom  was  a  doctor  (of  theology)  and  several  members  of  the 
council  of  the  town.  They  then  discoursed  with  the  master 
for  four  hours  on  various  matters  connected  with  him,  and  on 
what  rumour  had  reported,  and  when  they  had  conferred  on 
each  one  of  these  matters,  they  said:  '  For  certain,  master, 
this  which  we  have  heard  is  catholic  (doctrine).  We  have 
for  many  years  taught  and  held  these  doctrines  and  we  now 
teach  and  believe  them,  and  if  there  is  nothing  else  against 
thee,  thou  wilt  certainly  leave  the  council  and  return  from  it 
with  honour.  And  then  they  all  parted  in  a  friendly 
fashion."  At  Nuremburg  Hus  was  informed  that  King 
Sigismund  had  now  prepared  the  letter  of  safe-conduct  for 
him,  and  it  was  suggested  that  he  should  proceed  to  Spires, 
where  Sigismund  then  stayed,  to  receive  the  letter  and  place 
himself  under  the  king's  immediate  protection.  Hearing 
that  many  members  of  the  council  had  already  arrived  at 
Constance,  and  that  Pope  John  XXIII.  was  already  on  his 
way  there,  Hus  decided  to  continue  his  journey  directly  to 
Constance.  He  begged  his  friend  Lord  Venceslas  of  Duba  to 
proceed  to  the  imperial  court  and  receive  the  letter  of  safe- 
conduct  for  him.  Hus  has  often  been  blamed  for  this  decision, 
which  certainly  bears  witness  to  his  innate  belief  in  the  good- 
ness of  human  nature,  and  perhaps  to  his  want  of  worldly 
wisdom.     Yet  if  we  take  the  nature  of  Sigismund  into  account 

1  Palacky,  Documenta. 

O 


210  THETLIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

and  remember  that  he  was  acting  in  accordance  with  a  pre- 
conceived plan,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  final  result 
would  have  been  different  had  Hus  proceeded  to  Spires. 
From  Nuremburg  the  Bohemians  continued  their  journey- 
through  Southern  Germany  by  Ansbach  and  Ulm  to  Biberach, 
then  a  free  city,  now  an  insignificant  and  decaying  town  in 
the  kingdom  of  Wurtemberg.  Here,  as  everywhere,  the 
Bohemians  showed  that  fondness  for  theological  discussions 
which  was  then  characteristic  of  their  nation  and  which  only 
disappeared  when,  after  the  battle  of  the  White  Mountain,  all 
religious  liberty  perished  for  centuries.  When  a  discussion  on 
religious  matters  began  at  Biberach,  Lord  John  of  Chlum  took 
so  prominent  a  part — while  Hus  spoke  little — that  the  citizens 
believed  him  to  be  a  doctor  of  theology.  His  companions 
henceforth  gave  Lord  John  the  nickname,  doctor  alls  de 
Pibrach.  From  Biberach  the  Bohemians  proceeded  by 
Ravensburg  to  Buchhorn,  on  the  lake  of  Constance.  They 
crossed  the  lake  in  a  boat  and  arrived  at  the  city  of  Constance 
on  November  3,  1414.  Hus  was  lodged  in  the  house  of  "  a 
good  widow  named  Fida,"  as  Mladenovic  writes,  which  was 
situated  in  St.  Paul's  Street — now  called  Hus's  Street — near 
the  Schnetz  gate.  The  house,  which  is  probably  little  changed, 
is  shown  to  visitors.  A  medallion  with  a  bust  of  Hus  and  an 
inscription  in  Bohemian  and  German  was  placed  on  it  some 
years  ago.  In  his  first  letter1  after  his  arrival  at  Constance 
Hus  writes,  on  November  4:  "  We  arrived  at  Constance  on 
the  Saturday  after  All  Souls  without  any  annoyance,  after 
having  passed  through  different  cities  and  after  having  every- 
where distributed  our  proclamation  (stating  that  Hus  was 
going  to  Constance  freely  to  clear  himself  of  the  accusation 
of  heresy),  written  both  in  Latin  and  in  German.  We  live  at 
Constance  near  the  pope's  dwelling-place,  and  have  arrived 

1  Palacky,  Documenta.  When  the  contrary  is  not  stated  I  have  always 
quoted  Hus's  letters  from  Palacky's  work,  which  contains  far  the  most 
complete  collection  of  documents  referring  to  Hus. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  211 

without  safe-conduct.  The  day  after  my  arrival  Michael  de 
causis  placed  on  the  door  of  the  church  (cathedral)  an  in- 
formation against  me  written  in  large  letters  and  stating  that 
he  accuses  John  Hus,  a  man  excommunicated,  pertinacious, 
and  suspected  of  heresy  and  other  such  things.  But  with 
God's  help  I  will  not  heed  this,  knowing  that  God  sent  him 
against  me  that  he  (Michael)  should  curse  me  because  of  my 
sins,  and  also  to  try  me  (my  strength)  whether  I  could  and 
would  endure  suffering.1 

By  this  time  Hus's  enemies  had  begun  to  assemble  at 
Constance.  Friends,  except  his  few  Bohemian  comrades,  he 
could  not  expect  to  find  there,  and  although  he  put  trust  in 
the  faithless  Sigismund,  the  fact  that  he  undertook  the  journey 
proves  how  entirely  he  submitted  himself  to  the  behests  of 
his  conscience  and  to  the  decrees  of  providence.  Some  days 
before  Hus,  the  famed  pontiff  John  XXIII.  had  arrived  at 
Constance.  He  left  Bologna  at  the  beginning  of  October  and 
made  his  way  to  Constance  through  the  Tirol.  At  Trent  he 
had  an  important  interview  with  Duke  Frederick  of  Austria, 
then  ruler  of  the  Tirol.  An  unwritten  alliance  between  the 
house  of  Habsburg  and  the  papal  see  has,  with  brief  intervals, 
existed  since  the  time  of  Rudolph  of  Habsburg.  The  duke 
and  the  pope,  therefore,  soon  came  to  an  agreement.  John 
XXIII.  conferred  on  Frederick  the  title  of  gonfalonier  of  the 
holy  church  with  an  annual  salary  of  6000  ducats.  Frederick, 
on  the  other  hand,  recognised  the  claims  of  John  to  the  papacy, 
promised  to  escort  him  to  Constance  with  an  armed  force,  and 
to  afford  him  a  refuge  in  his  dominions — which  marched  with 
those  of  the  city  of  Constance — if  he  should  not  feel  safe  there. 
These  negotiations  begun  at  Trent  were  concluded  at  Meran. 
In  agreeing  to  this  alliance  Frederick  was  guided  not  only  by 
the  hope  of  pecuniary  advantage,  but  also  by  his  bitter  hatred 

1  The  letter — written  in  Latin — ended  with  the  words:    "  Datum  in  Con- 
stantia.     Oretis  Deum  pro  constantia  in  veritate." 


212  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

of  Sigismund,  which  sprang  from  a  cause  equally  discreditable 
to  both  princes.1 

From  the  Tirol  the  pope  crossed  by  the  Arlberg  Pass  into 
Vorarlberg.  Richenthal,  that  very  entertaining,  though  very 
mendacious  chronicler  of  the  council,  thus  describes  the  pope's 
journey: 2  "  When  the  pope  arrived  at  the  summit  of  the  Arl- 
berg near  where  the  monastery  is,  his  carriage  overturned  and 
he  lay  in  the  snow  under  the  carriage.  Then  his  lords  and 
courtiers  came  to  him  and  said :  '  Holy  Father,  hast  thou  not 
been  injured!  '  He  answered,  '  I  lie  here  in  the  name  of  the 
devil !  '  Then  when  they  proceeded  onward  from  the  monas- 
tery and  could  look  down  on  Bluditz  (probably  Bludenz)  and 
the  land,  he  said:  Sic  capiuntur  vulpes,  which  means,  '  Thus  are 
foxes  entrapped.'  '  The  pope  and  his  party  then  proceeded 
to  Feldkirch  and  from  there  by  Reinegg  to  Constance,  where 
the  pope  was  received  with  great  solemnity. 

It  was  not,  however,  Baldassare  Cossa  who  was  to  prove 
Hus's  most  dangerous  and  bitterest  enemy.  These  were 
found  among  his  own  countrymen.  It  is  the  fact  that  in  all 
the  most  important  moments  the  task  of  great  Bohemians  has 
been  frustrated  by  the  envy  and  malice  of  their  own  country- 
men that  renders  the  history  of  Bohemia  one  of  the  saddest 
in  the  annals  of  the  world.  Foremost  among  Hus's  enemies 
was  John  f the  iron^Bishop  of  Litomysl.  It  is  not  probable 
that  he  was  greatly  interested  in  Wycliffe's  profound  but  arid 
doctrines.  Like  most  of  Hus's  Bohemian  opponents,  he  had 
probably  read  none  of  the  English  reformer's  works.  But  as 
a  notorious  simonist  and  a  very  opulent  man,  he  saw  the  great 
danger  which  men  of  his  class  would  necessarily  incur,  if  the 

1  During  the  festivities  that  by  Frederick's  order  took  place  at  Innsbruck 
in  honour  of  Sigismund,  a  young  girl,  the  daughter  of  a  notable  citizen,  was 
violated,  and  public  opinion  pointed  to  one  of  the  two  princes  as  having  been 
guilty  of  the  deed.  Both  Sigismund  and  Frederick  affirmed  their  innocence, 
each  maintaining  that  the  other  was  the  culprit.  Mortal  enmity  arose 
between  the  two  princes  in  consequence.  The  whole  story  is  told  by  Eberhard 
Windeck,  c.  32. 

2  Ulrich  von  Kichenthal,  Chronik  des  Coustanzer  Concils,  ed.  1SS2,  p.  25. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  213 

praise  of  poverty  and  the  laudation  of  the  simplicity  of  the 
primitive  church  were  permitted.  Though  a  very  rich  man 
— he  had  even  attempted  to  outbid  Albik  when  the  latter 
obtained  the  archbishopric  of  Prague  —  John  the  iron  did 
not  think  his  own  ample  means  sufficient  to  crush  the  detested 
Hus.  He  therefore  applied  to  the  higher  ecclesiastical  digni- 
taries of  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  to  the  parish  priests  of  Prague, 
who  had  a  great  personal  interest  in  the  matter,  and  to  several 
nobles  who  were  opposed  to  church-reform,  asking  them  for 
financial  aid.  By  means  of  this  subscription  a  very  large  sum 
of  money  was  raised ;  the  services  of  many  informers  were 
secured ;  Hus  was  surrounded  by  spies  as  soon  as  he  arrived  j 
at  Constance.  Among  the  early  arrivals  at  Constance  also ! 
was  Venceslas  Tiem,  Dean  of  Passau,  whose  trade  in  indul- 
gences in  Prague  had  caused  the  outbreak  of  the  crisis.  No 
doubt  also  with  a  desire  for  revenge  several  members  of  the 
new  university  of  Leipzig  attended  the  council,  wishing  to 
denounce  Hus,  through  whose  influence,  as  they  believed,  they 
had  been  unjustly  driven  from  Prague.  Michael  de  causis,  as 
mentioned,  had  arrived  at  Constance  before  Hus.  Stephen 
Palec,  who  was  to  take  so  prominent  a  part  in  the  proceedings 
against  Hus,  now  also  arrived  there.  Mladenovic  writes: 
"  Stephen  Palec  arrived  at  Constance.  He  had  travelled 
from  Bohemia  with  Magister  Stanislas  of  Znoymo,  but  the 
latter  had  been  struck  down  by  apoplexy  at  Jindrichuv 
Hradec  (Neuhaus)  and  had  died.  Here  (at  Constance)  Palec 
immediately  associated  with  Michael  de  causis,  the  '  in- 
stigator,' x  and  an  enemy  of  Hus.  They  wrote  down  some 
articles  against  Magister  Hus  which,  they  said,  they  had 
derived  from  the  treatise  De  Ecclesia.  Stephen,  with  the  said 
Michael,  ran  hither  and  thither  2  among  the  principal  cardinals, 
archbishops,  bishops,  and  other  prelates,  and  we  saw  him  do 

1  Palacky   adds   as   an   explanation   the   Bohemian   word    nabadac.      The 
French  word; agent-provocateur  perhaps  best  conveys  the  meaning  intended. 
-  "  cursitabat." 


214  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

this  almost  daily.  He  there  accused  Magister  Hus  and  in- 
stigated them  at  least  to  arrest  him.  Then  he  associated  with 
the  friars,  showed  them  the  articles  already  mentioned  and 
others,  and  he  especially  stirred  up  against  Hus  the  older  and 
more  learned  men,  showing  them  other  accusations,  of  which 
I  obtained  a  copy  from  one  of  them."  Mladenovic  then  gives 
some  personal  details  concerning  Palec  and  Michael  de  causis. 
He  states  that  the  former  had  been  a  friend  of  Hus  and  that 
the  latter — as  has  been  already  mentioned — had  been  obliged 
to  fly  from  Bohemia  because  he  had  embezzled  money  con- 
fided to  him  for  the  working  of  gold-mines. 

As  soon  as  Hus  had  arrived  at  Constance  two  of  his  pro- 
tectors and  companions,  Lord  Henry  of  Chlum  and  Lord  John 
of  Duba,  had  visited  Pope  John  XXIII. ,  who  lived  in  the 
palace  of  the  bishop  not  far  from  the  dwelling-place  of  Hus. 
They  announced  Hus's  arrival  to  the  pope,  who  assured  them 
that  he  would  allow  no  one  to  molest  him  and  that  he  would 
be  perfectly  safe  at  Constance,  even  should  he  have  killed  his 
own  brother.  To  the  diavolo  cardinale  Hus  probably  appeared 
as  a  harmless  enthusiast,  and  he  may  have  considered  it 
politic  to  befriend  the  Bohemian  noblemen  in  view  of  his 
possibly  being  involved  in  a  conflict  with  Sigismund.  During 
the  short  period  of  freedom  which  was  granted  to  Hus  at 
Constance  he  led  the  life  of  a  recluse,  hardly  ever  leaving  his 
dwelling.  As  had  been  his  custom  during  his  journey  and  also 
when  living  as  an  exile  in  Bohemia,  he  said  mass  daily  in 
strictest  privacy.  It  was  only  from  his  little  window  that  he 
watched  the  gay  life  of  the  city  of  Constance,  which  for  a  time 
had  become  the  intellectual  and  political,  and,  to  a  certain 
extent,  even  the  social  capital  of  the  world.  He  watched  the 
cardinals  on  richly-caparisoned  horses,  followed  by  numerous 
attendants  as  they  rode  through  the  neighbouring  Schnetz 
gate.  He  cannot  have  been  entirely  unaware  of  the  terrible 
immorality  which  the  presence  of  numerous  rich  and  un- 
scrupulous men  caused  in  the  city — so  great,  as  the  citizens  said, 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  215 

that  it  would  require  a  century  to  purge  Constance  from  sin. 
A  man  of  ascetic  and,  if  we  may  call  it  so,  puritanic  mind, 
Hus  looked  on  all  this  with  displeasure,  and  he  must  have  felt 
strangely  isolated  in  the  city.  The  house  in  which  he  lived 
was  constantly  watched  by  numerous  spies,  who  were  in  the 
pay  of  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl.  Bishop  John  was  incessantly 
demanding  that  Hus  should  be  immediately  arrested.  Like 
most  of  King  Venceslas's  enemies  in  Bohemia,  he  was  no  doubt 
on  good  terms  with  Sigismund,  and  knew  how  difficult  it 
would  be  for  him  to  sanction  the  arrest  of  Hus  at  Constance  if 
he  were  himself  in  the  city.  The  spies  and  informers,  therefore, 
redoubled  their  activity.  When  a  hay  cart  was  seen  before 
the  house  of  Hus,  the  spies  immediately  reported  that  Hus 
intended  to  escape  hidden  in  it.  The  tale,  which,  as  we  know 
from  Mladenovic,  was  immediately  circulated  by  Michael 
and  Palec,  is  found  also  in  the  chronicle  of  Richenthal,  that 
somewhat  frivolous  writer,  who  was  more  interested  in 
enumerating  the  gains  of  butchers,  fishmongers,  and  others 
practising  less  respectable  professions  than  in  studying  the 
serious  events  connected  with  the  council.  It  has  also  been 
conjectured  that  Richenthal  here  confused  Hus  with  Jerome 
of  Prague,  who  actually  made  a  successful  attempt  to  escape 
secretly  from  Constance.  It  should  be  mentioned  that  few 
serious  historians  have  alluded  to  Richenthal's  tale.  A  firm 
adherent  of  the  Roman  Church,  Baron  Helfert,  in  his  interest- 
ing work,  Hus  unci  Hieronymus,  rejects  the  story  as  decidedly 
as  do  all  the  other  writers  who  have  considered  it  worth 
mention.  Like  many  other  falsehoods,  however,  this  one 
also  served  its  purpose.  We  cannot,  of  course,  fathom  the 
true  motives  of  the  members  of  the  council,  but  Bishop  John's 
men  could  not  have  found  a  better  pretext  for  obtaining  that 
which  they  desired — the  immediate  imprisonment  of  Hus. 
That  event  can  best  be  told  in  the  words  of  Mladenovic.1     He 

1  It  has  been  necessary  to  abridge  considerably  the  narrative  of  Mladenovic 
contained  in  his  Relatio  de  M.  J.  Hus  causa. 


216  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

writes:    "  Then  shortly  after  St.  Catherine's  day,  the  cardinals 
who  were  then  at  Constance,  on  November  28,  instigated  by 
his   (Hus's)   enemies,   Palec   and  Michael,   sent   two  bishops, 
those  of  Augsburg  and  Trent,  the  burgomaster  of  the  city  of 
Constance,  and  one  Hans  von  Poden,  a  soldier,1  to  his  dwelling- 
place.     They  arrived  at  the  hour  of  dinner  and  told  Lord  John 
of  Chlum  that  they  had  come  on  the  part  of  the  cardinals  and 
by  order  of  the  pope  to  visit  John  Hus,  and,  as  he  had  formerly 
wished  to  speak  to  them,  they  were  now  prepared  to  hear  him. 
Then  John  of  Chlum  rose,  greatly  incensed,  and  said:    '  Know 
you  not,  reverend  brethren,  how  and  in  what  fashion  Magister 
John  Hus  came  here?     If  you  know  it  not,  I  will  tell  you  that 
when  I  and  Lord  Venceslas  of  Lestna 2  were  in  Friulia  with 
our  lord  the  emperor  and  intended  to  return  to  our  own 
country,  he  ordered  us  to  assure  Magister  John  of  his  safe- 
conduct  that  he  might  come  to  this  council.     Know,  therefore, 
that  you  must  do  nothing  against  the  honour  of  our  master.' 
And  to  the  burgomaster  he  said  in  German :    '  Thou  shouldst 
know  that  if  the  devil  came  to  have  his  case  tried,  he  should  be 
given  a  fair  hearing.'     Then  addressing  the  bishops  he  con- 
tinued: '  Our  lord  the  king  (Sigismund)  also  said:  "  If  Magister 
Hus  consents  to  go  to  Constance,  tell  him  that  on  this  matter 
(the  question  of  heresy)  he  must  say  nothing  except  in  my 
presence,  when,  by  the  help  of  God,  I  shall  have  come  to  Con- 
stance." '     Hearing  this,  all  those  who  had  come,  particularly 
the  Bishop  of  Trent,  said,  as  he  answered  them  in  so  violent  a 
manner:    '  Lord  John,  we  have  come  only  in  the  interest  of 
peace,  that  there  should  be  no  uproar.'     Then  rising  from 
table  Master  John  Hus,  whom  the  bishops  had  not  recognised, 
said :   '  I  did  not  come  here  to  see  the  cardinals,  nor  to  converse 
with  them.     I  came  to  the  whole  council.     There  will  I  speak, 
as  God  will  direct  me,  and  answer  on  what  I  am  questioned; 
but  on  the  wish  of  the  cardinals  I  am  ready  to  come  to  them, 

1  Poden  was  the  captain  of  the  town  guard. 

2  Another  title  of  Lord  Venceslas  of  Duba.         « 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  217 

and  if  they  interrogate  me,  I  hope  rather  to  choose  death  than 
deny  any  truth  that  is  known  to  me  from  Scripture  or  other- 
wise.' " 

Mladenovic  then  describes  how  the  city  magistrates  had 
ordered  Hus's  dwelling-place  to  be  surrounded  by  armed  men, 
and  writes:  "  When  the  magister  descended  the  steps,  his 
hostess  (the  widow  Fida)  met  him,  and  he  took  leave  of  her, 
saying:  'God's  blessing  on  thee,'  and  she  wept  answering 
him.  The  bishops,  while  he  descended  the  steps,  said  to  him : 
'  Now  wilt  thou  no  longer  officiate,  or  say  mass.'  Then  he 
mounted  a  poor  horse  and  with  the  envoys  (of  the  council)  and 
his  companion,  Lord  John  of  Chlum,  rode  to  the  palace  of  the 
pope  and  the  cardinals."  Mladenovic  then  tells  us  that  the 
cardinals  informed  Hus  that  many  complaints  against  him 
had  been  sent  to  them  from  Bohemia.  Hus  replied  that  he 
had  come  freely  to  the  council,  and  that  if  he  were  convicted 
of  error  he  would  gladly  accept  instruction. 

Before  Hus  was  imprisoned,  an  event  took  place  which, 
proving  as  it  does  how  unscrupulously  and  energetically  the 
agents  of  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl  strove  to  deprive  him  of  his 
liberty,  has  an  importance  that  is  not  superficially  obvious. 
It  is,  however,  a  fact  that,  when  Palacky  was — about  the  year 
1840 — publishing  the  first  edition  of  his  monumental  history 
of  Bohemia,  the  ecclesiastical  censure  office  of  the  Austrian 
government 1  ordered  Palacky  to  omit  all  mention  of  the 
monk  Didacus.  Here  again  it  will  be  well  to  quote  Mlade- 
novic, who  was  with  Hus  and  Duba  during  the  occurrence. 
He  writes:  "  They  then  sent  a  minorite  friar  named  Didacus, 
a  professor  of  Holy  Writ,  who  was  to  sound  the  master,  who 
was  then  already  in  the  custody  of  armed  men.  He  ap- 
proached him  and  said:  '  Reverend  master,  I,  who  am  but  a 
simple,  ignorant 2  monk,  have  heard  that  you  assert  much 
that  deviates  (from  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church),  and 

1  See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literatitre  (2nd  ed.,  pp.  396-398). 
2  "  idiot  a." 


218  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

so  I  have  come,  wishing  to  know  if  this  is  true,  and  if  you  hold 
the  views  that  are  attributed  to  you.  Firstly,  it  is  said  that 
you  maintain  and  assert  that,  after  consecration,  material 
bread  remains  in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar.'  And  Magister 
John  Hus:  '  I  hold  not  this  view,'  and  he:  '  You  hold  it  not?  ' 
Then  the  magister  (said) :  '  No,  I  hold  it  not.'  When  he  had 
given  this  answer  three  times,  Lord  John  of  Chlum,  who  was 
sitting  near,  said:  '  What  kind  of  a  man  art  thou?  If  some 
one  were  once  to  affirm  or  deny  something  to  me,  I  should 
believe  him,  but  this  man  has  answered  thee  three  times 
saying:  "  I  hold  not  this  view,"  and  thou  continuest  to  ques- 
tion him.'  Then  the  monk  said:  '  Noble  knight,  bear  me  no 
ill-will,  for  I  am  a  simple,  uneducated  monk,  who  seeks  in- 
struction.' Then  when  the  monk  began  to  question  Magister 
John  as  to  the  unity  of  the  human  and  the  divine  nature  in 
Christ,  the  magister  said  to  Lord  John  in  Bohemian:  '  This 
monk  says  indeed  that  he  is  a  plain,  uneducated  man,  but  he 
cannot  be  so  very  simple,  as  he  questions  me  on  the  most  pro- 
found subjects.'  Then,  turning  to  the  monk,  he  said:  '  Thou 
sayest  that  thou  art  simple  (simplex),  but  I  say  that  thou  art 
false  (duplex),  not  simple.'  Then  the  monk  said:  '  I  deny 
that  I  am  false.'  "  Mladenovic  then  reports  the  continuation 
of  the  conversation,  or  rather  of  the  cross-examination  of  Hus 
by  the  monk.  "  Then,"  Mladenovic  continues,  "  the  monk 
left,  and  the  armed  men  who  were  standing  near,  the  guards 
of  the  supreme  pontiff  John  XXIII.,  said:  '  Know  ye  who  this 
man  was  ?  '  And  when  the  magister  replied  that  he  knew  not, 
they  said :  '  He  is  Magister  Didacus,  reputed  in  all  Lombardy 
the  most  subtle  of  theologians.'  Then  Magister  Hus  said: 
'  Had  I  but  known  it !  I  would  have  plied  him  x  differently 
with  Scripture.  Were  they  but  all  like  that,  with  God's  aid 
and  the  support  of  Holy  Scripture  supporting  me,  I  should 
fear  none  of  them!  '  "  During  the  time  that  Hus  remained 
in  the  bishop's  palace,  a  considerable  number  of  Bohemians 

1  "  pupitgissem." 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  219 

had  assembled  there,  who  waited  in  the  ante-room  to  hear  the 
decision  of  the  cardinals.  Among  them  were  several  friends 
of  Hus,  and  also  Stephen  Palec  and  Michael  de  causis,  the 
ringleaders  of  the  agents  of  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl.  When 
they  found  that  Hus  would  be  detained,  they  displayed 
ignoble  and  indecent  joy.  They  danced  round  the  room 
exclaiming:1  "  Ha!  ha!  now  we  have  him,  he  will  not  escape 
us  till  he  has  paid  the  last  farthing;  "  by  this  they  meant  that 
he  would  suffer  the  supreme  penalty,  the  sentence  of  death. 
The  cardinals  at  last  sent  a  message  saying  that  Lord  John 
might  depart,  but  that  Hus  was  to  remain  in  custody.  Lord 
John  made  a  direct  appeal  to  the  pope,  who  declined  all 
responsibility  and  said  that  the  arrest  was  the  work  of  the 
cardinals,  with  whom  he  was  himself  on  bad  terms.  It  is 
very  difficult  to  conjecture  the  part  of  the  cunning  Italian 
Baldassare  Cossa  in  this  matter.  Little  acquainted  with  the  . 
affairs  of  Northern  Europe,  he  probably  considered  Hus  a  )ji 
person  of  very  slight  importance.  Perhaps  hoping  to  win  " 
Bohemia  to  his  side,  he  had  at  first  promised  Hus's  companions 
that  he  would  protect  him.  He  now  also  assured  the 
Bohemian  noblemen  that  he  had  no  part  in  his  arrest.  He 
repeated  this  assertion  afterwards  to  King  Sigismund,  when 
the  latter,  on  arriving  at  Constance,  feigned  to  be  indignant 
at  the  imprisonment  of  Hus.  Later,  however,  when  John 
XXIII.  had  fled  from  Constance  to  Schafhausen  and  was  on 
terms  of  enmity  with  Sigismund,  he  wrote  to  the  King  of 
France  stating  that  by  his  order  Hus  had  been  imprisoned  as 
a  heretic,  though  Sigismund  had  endeavoured  to  protect  him. 
After  protesting  energetically,  Lord  John  of  Duba  left  the 
palace,  where  Hus  remained  surrounded  by  armed  guards. 
Peter  Mladenovic,  as  he  tells  us,  brought  him  his  fur  coat  and 
a  supply  of  money.  In  the  evening  Hus  was  conveyed  to 
the  house  of  a  precentor  of  the  cathedral.     After  a  week — on 

1  "  Et   saltantes   circa   aestuarium   gaudebant   dicentes:     Ha!     ha!    jam 
habemus  eum ;  non  exibit  nobis,  quousque  non  reddat  minimum  quadrantem." 


220  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

December  6,  1414 — he  was  taken  to  the  Dominican  monastery, 
situated  on  a  small  island  in  the  lake  that  is  separated  from 
the  rest  of  the  city  only  by  a  very  narrow  course  of  water.1 
Here  he  was  imprisoned  in  a  gloomy  dungeon  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  the  sewer. 

The  friends  of  Hus  did  not  meanwhile  remain  inactive,  but 
their  efforts  were  necessarily  futile  as  they  put  their  trust  in 
Sigismund.  The  King  of  Hungary  never  honestly  wished  that 
Hus  should  be  restored  to  liberty,  but  in  view  of  the  great  in- 
dignation caused  in  Bohemia — of  which  country  he  considered 
himself  the  future  king — by  the  imprisonment  of  the  venerated 
leader  of  the  nation,  he  thought  it  politic  to  feign  displeasure. 
These  repeated  expressions  of  simulated  indignation  on  the 
part  of  Sigismund  scarcely  deserve  mention.  The  loyal  Lord 
John  of  Chlum,  according  to  the  fashion  of  the  time,  twice 
affixed  to  the  gates  of  the  Cathedral  of  Constance  protests 
against  the  imprisonment  of  Hus,  referring  directly  to  the 
imperial  safe-conduct.  He  also  wrote  to  Sigismund,  who  sent 
a  protest  to  the  pope  and  the  cardinals,  of  which  they — 
probably  aware  of  the  king's  real  feelings — took  no  notice. 
Early  in  January  1415,  the  nobles  of  Moravia,  with  whom 
were  also  Hanus  of  Lipa,  supreme  marshal  of  Bohemia,  and 
other  Bohemian  lords,  met  at  Mezeric.  They  addressed  to 
King  Sigismund  a  letter  which  contained  guarded,  but  yet 
significant  remonstrances.  The  letter 2  stated  that  the 
nobles  had  heard  "  that  Hus  had  on  his  arrival  at  Constance 
been  arrested  and  imprisoned  while  holding  a  royal  safe-con- 
duct, without  cause  and  examination,  in  a   manner  contrary 

1  The  Dominican  monastery  is  now  the  Insel  Hotel,  known  to  most 
travellers.  The  cloisters  and  the  former  chapel,  now  the  dining-room,  alone 
recall  the  former  character  of  the  building.  To  a  Bohemian  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  memory  of  Hus  is  held  in  great  honour  here.  Recently- 
painted  frescoes  decorate  the  cloisters.  A  small  one  represents  Hus  in 
prison,  while  one  of  the  largest  records  one  of  the  least  interesting  events  in 
modern  German  history  (the  meeting  at  Constance  and  reconciliation  of  the 
German  emperor,  William  I.,  and  the  Duke  of  Nassau,  whom  Prussia  had 
deprived  of  his  dominions). 

-  Palacky,  Documenta. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  221 

to  order,  faith,  and  the  royal  safe-conduct.  There  is  much 
talk  here  and  elsewhere,"  they  continued,  "  among  the  princes 
and  lords,  the  poor  and  rich,  concerning  the  holy  father's  having 
acted  contrary  to  order,  faith,  and  the  royal  letter  of  safe- 
conduct,1  and  his  having  imprisoned  a  just  and  innocent  man. 
Therefore,  may  your  majesty  graciously  deign  as  king  and  lord, 
and  eventual  heir  to  the  Bohemian  throne,  to  take  measures 
that  Master  John  Hus  be  delivered  from  this  illegal  imprison- 
ment." The  question  whether  the  Bohemian  crown  was 
elective  or  hereditary  was  then  and  continued  for  many  years 
afterwards  to  be  uncertain.  These  words  have,  therefore,  a 
somewhat  menacing  note,  which  is  yet  more  accentuated  in  a 
later  passage  of  the  letter:  "  It  would  indeed,"  the  nobles 
wrote,  "  be  an  offence  to  the  Bohemian  crown  should  anything 
befall  a  just  man,  holding  such  a  safe-conduct.  God  knows 
that  we  should  hear  with  great  displeasure  that  your  Majesty's 
good  name  suffered  through  such  an  event.  It  would  indeed 
be  a  reason  why  many  would  distrust  your  Majesty's  safe- 
conduct,  and  there  has  already  been  talk  of  this." 

Sigismund  does  not  appear  to  have  heeded  this  warning. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  he  thought  that,  Hus  once  removed, 
the  Hussite  movement  would  collapse.  Of  course,  events 
proved  the  contrary,  but  Sigismund's  conjecture  was  not  de- 
void of  plausibility.  No  less  a  historian  than  Palacky  has 
written  that,  had  not  the  exceptional  military  genius  of  Zizka 
enabled  the  Bohemians  to  defend  their  country  and  their 
faith,  Hus  would  appear  in  history  as  an  isolated  enthusiast 
like  Savonarola.  The  admirable  organisation  of  the  Bohemian 
armies  and  the  wisdom  which  the  magisters  of  the  university, 
particularly  the  learned  Jacobellus,  displayed  as  spiritual 
leaders  of  the  people,  enabled  Bohemia  to  retain  for  two 
centuries  a  national  and  independent  church. 

While  Hus's  friends  were  endeavouring  to  help  him,  his 
enemies  strove  with  equal  energy  and  greater  success  to  bring 

1  These  words  are  repeated,  no  doubt  to  lay  stress  on  them. 


\, 


222  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

about  his  ruin.  They  naturally  considered  it  very  favourable 
to  their  cause  that  Hus  had  through  their  influence  been  cast 
into  prison.  Mainly  through  the  influence  of  the  Bohemian 
enemies  of  Hus,  who  disposed  of  very  large  pecuniary  means, 
the  council  on  December  4  appointed  three  commissioners, 
John,  (titular)  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  the  Bishops 
John  of  Liibeck  and  Bernard  of  Citta  di  Castello,  who  were  to 
report  on  the  case  of  Hus.  Michael  de  causis,  the  Judas  of 
Bohemia,  had  drawn  up  a  series  of  accusations  against  him. 
The  heretical  statements  of  which  he  was  accused  were  prin- 
cipally derived  from  Hus's  treatise  De  Ecclesia.  Some  of  these 
accusations  were  palpably  and  positively  false;  thus  it  was 
affirmed  that  Hus  had  said  that  the  substance  of  bread 
remained  in  the  sacrament  after  consecration  and  that 
unworthy  priests  could  not  validly  administer  communion.1 
Much  ingenuity  was  displayed  also  by  Michael's  accomplice 
Palec,  who  described  accusations  made  by  Hus  against  Pope 
John  XXIII. — far  more  moderate  than  those  afterwards 
sanctioned  by  the  council — as  general  accusations  against 
papacy.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  a  greater  amount  of  ignoble 
and  mendacious  sophistry  than  that  which  was  produced  by 
i   Michael  de  causis  and  Stephen  Palec. 

It  is  almost  pitiful  to  imagine  the  position  of  a  simple, 
truthful,  and  honest  man  as  was  Hus  when  attacked  by  such 
unscrupulous  and  mendacious  adversaries.  He  seems  himself 
to  have  felt  the  necessity  of  obtaining  legal  advice,  and  begged 
to  be  allowed  to  employ  a  lawyer  for  his  defence.  In  distinc- 
tion from  a  large  number  of  priests  of  his  day  who  were  better 
jurists  than  theologians,  Hus  had  devoted  his  time  to  preach- 
ing and  writing  in  favour  of  the  cause  of  church-reform,  as 
well  as  to  theological  study.  Michael  de  causis,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  the  type  of  the  most  unscrupulous  and  cunning 

1  As  regards  the  first  point,  Hus  had  already,  when  questioned  by  Didacus, 
denied  holding  the  opinion  attributed  to  him.  See  p.  218.  On  the  second 
point  Hus  long  before  had  expressed  views  in  accordance  with  the  teaching 
of  Rome  in  his  Super  IV.  Sententiarum.     See  p.  92. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE 


223 


lawyer — priests  of  a  period  when  the  ecclesiastical  state  was 
often  assumed  by  unworthy  men,  because  of  the  advantages 
and  privileges  which  it  conferred. 

Hus's  request  was  immediately  and  sternly  refused.  It 
was  declared  that,  according  to  canon  law,  no  aid  could  be 
given  to  a  heretic.  Hus  only  now  saw  how  greatly  he  had 
been  deceived  'and  how  desperate  his  position  was.  The 
mediaeval  church  looked  on  heretics  very  much  as  the  Roman 
emperors  looked  on  the  early  Christians.  They  were  men  out- 
side of  the  pale  of  humanity  with  whom  no  faith  need  be  kept. 
The  same  argument  was  brought  forward  later  when  Hus's 
safe-conduct  was  declared  invalid.  That  the  refusal  to  allow 
Hus  to  obtain  a  legal  representative  sealed  his  fate  was 
afterwards  openly  stated  by  John  Gerson,  one  of  the  most 
prominent  members  of  the  council.  When  the  proposed 
condemnation  of  the  monk  John  Petit  (Parvus),  who  had 
written  in  praise  of  tyrannicide,1  was  discussed,  Gerson,  in- 
dignant at  what  he  considered  the  unfairness  of  the  council, 
declared  that,  had  Hus  been  allowed  an  advocate,  he  would 
never  have  been  convicted  of  heresy  and  that  he  (Gerson) 
would  rather  be  tried  by  Jews  and  pagans  than  by  the  members 
of  the  council.  Hus,  though  now  aware  that  he  had  been 
enticed  to  Constance  entirely  on  false  pretences,  could  but 
submit.  Palec  and  Michael  continued  their  proceedings 
against  him  with  indefatigable  energy.  Hus,  shortly  after 
his  imprisonment,  had  fallen  dangerously  ill,  as  he  had  been 
placed  in  a  dungeon  close  to  the  sewer.  With  fiendish  in- 
genuity Michael  de  causis  thought  that  this  moment  when 
Hus  was  weak  through  illness  and  deeply  depressed  by  the 
treachery  of  which  he  had  been  the  victim  was  a  favourable 
one  to  confront  him  with  as  many  witnesses  as  possible.  Ac- 
cording to  the  proceedings  of  the  inquisition  which  were 
adopted,  publicity  was  excluded,  but  the  witnesses  gave  their 


1  This  matter,  which  cannot  be  discussed  here,  is  thoroughly  treated  by 
Von  der  Hardt,  Lenfant,  and  also  by  Dr.  Schwab,  Johannes  Gerson. 


224  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

evidence  on  oath  in  the  presence  of  the  accused.  Once,  when 
Hus's  illness  was  at  its  worst,  fifteen  witnesses  were  brought 
into  his  prison  on  the  same  day.  It  was  natural  that  he  should 
be  quite  bewildered,  and  God  only,  as  he  afterwards  wrote, 
knew  what  he  suffered.  Mladenovic,  who  enumerates  many 
of  those  who  were  made  to  give  evidence  against  Hus,  writes 
that  some  of  them  were  very  reluctant  to  do  so.  A  layman, 
before  he  was  called  in,  said:  "  I  swear  to  God  that  I  have 
nothing  to  depose."  Then  Michael  de  causis  said  to  him :  "  My 
good  man,  you  don't  know  what  they  will  ask  you,  and  you 
swear  that  you  have  nothing  to  depose.  As  for  me,  I  would 
bear  witness  against  my  own  father  if  it  was  (if  he  was  accused 
/  of)  something  against  the  faith."  The  result  of  these  investi- 
j  gations  was  that  the  commissioners,  on  the  advice  of  Michael 
!  and  Stephen  Palec,  drew  up  a  new  act  of  accusation  against 
Hus  consisting  of  forty-four  articles,  all  derived  from  the 
treatise  De  Ecclesia.  "  These  had,"  Mladenovic  writes,  "  been 
falsely  and  unfairly  extracted  from  the  book  by  Palec,  who 
had  mutilated  some  sentences  at  the  beginning,  others  in  the 
middle,  others  at  the  end,  and  who  had  also  invented  things 
that  were  not  contained  in  the  book  at  all." 

The  Bohemian  informers  uninterruptedly  continued  their 
task  of  persecuting  Hus,  but  the  council  was  now  for  a  time 
occupied  with  other  matters.  On  Christmas  Day,  1414, 
Sigismund  arrived  at  Constance.  Richenthal,  who  describes 
the  arrival  of  such  illustrious  visitors  in  his  native  town  with 
evident  pleasure,  writes:  "  On  the  holy  day  early,  two  hours 
after  midnight,  came  from  Ueberlingen  to  Constance  that 
most  noble  prince  Sigismund,  King  of  the  Romans,  of  Hun- 
gary, Dalmatia,  Croatia,  etc.,  and  with  him  the  most  noble 
princess,  Lady  Barbara,  Queen  of  the  Romans,  his  spouse,  by 
birth  Countess  of  Cilli,  and  the  most  noble  princess,  Lady 
Elizabeth,  Queen  of  Bosnia,1  and  also  the  most  noble  princess, 

1  Wife  of  Tvartko  of  Bosnia,  who  had  been  an  ally  of  Sigismund  during 
his  wars  in  Hungary  and  Dalmatia. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  225 

Lady  Anne  of  Wurtemberg,  by  birth  a  burgravine  of  Nurem- 
berg. There  came  also  with  the  king  the  most  noble  elector, 
Duke  Louis  of  Saxony.  After  landing  from  the  boats  they 
retired  to  their  apartments  and  warmed  themselves  for  an 
hour.  Then  the  citizens  of  Constance  presented  them  with 
two  golden  cloths.  The  one  was  carried — as  a  baldachin — on 
four  poles  over  the  king,  the  other,  also  on  four  poles,  over  the 
queen  and  the  Queen  of  Bosnia.  Thus  they  proceeded  to  the 
cathedral,  and  the  pope,  wearing  a  handsome  mitre  adorned 
with  gold  and  precious  stones,  read  the  first  mass  on  Christmas 
Day,  which  they  call  Dominus  dixit  ad  me."  Richenthal  then 
continues  to  describe  the  other  functions,  for  the  pope,  accord- 
ing to  custom,  said  three  masses  on  Christmas  Day.  He  after- 
wards presented  Sigismund  with  a  sword,  hoping  that  he  would 
use  it  for  the  defence  of  the  church.  The  German  princes  had 
not  at  first  paid  much  attention  to  the  council.  The  schism 
and  the  violent  and  undignified  controversies  between  the 
adherents  of  the  rival  popes,  which  had  been  its  consequence, 
had  caused  the  clergy  to  fall  in  Germany  into  a  state  of  con- 
tempt and  disesteem,  which  is  not  the  less  certain  because 
little  written  evidence  of  this  feeling  remains.1  The  Bohemian 
writers  of  the  fifteenth  century  who  so  strongly  attacked 
papacy  and  the  Roman  Church  certainly  met  with  more 
sympathy  in  Germany  than  is  usually  supposed.  The  German 
princes,  therefore,  felt  little  inclined  to  go  to  Constance  to  greet 
Pope  John  XXIII.  Some  of  their  number,  such  as  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Trier,  still  acknowledged  the  obedience  of  Pope 
Gregory  XII.  After  the  arrival  of  Sigismund,  the  head  of  the 
empire  and — since  his  recent  coronation  at  Aachen — emperor, 
a  great  change  took  place  in  this  respect.  In  January  1415, 
the  Bavarian  princes,  Louis  Count  Palatine — who  played  a 
prominent  part  at  the  execution  of  Hus — and  Dukes  Henry 
and  Louis,  arrived  at  Constance.     Other  new  arrivals  were,  the 

1  This  is,  of  course,  only  true  of  the  early  part  of  the  fifteenth  century. 
There  are,  as  is  known,  countless  German  writings  with  anti-papal  tendency 
belonging  to  the  sixteenth  century. 

P 


^ 


226  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

burgraves  John  and  Frederick  of  Nuremberg,  Duke  Frederick 
of  Austria,  the  Margrave  of  Baden,  and  the  Elector-Archbishop 
John  of  Maintz.  This  prelate  rode  into  Constance  in  full 
armour,  a  fact  that  scandalised  even  the  large-minded 
Richenthal. 

Sigismund,  whose  dominant  characteristic,  next  to  perfidy, 
was  puerile  vanity,  greatly  rejoiced  over  his  position  as  leader 
of  so  brilliant  an  assembly.  He  had  undoubtedly  succeeded 
in  renewing  the  waning  prestige  of  the  Roman  crown. 
Though  Hus's  loyal  Bohemian  friends  continued  to  bring 
their  unwelcome  grievances  before  Sigismund,  he  felt  little 
interest  in  the  case  of  the  pious  and  humble  Bohemian  priest. 
He  knew  him  to  be  under  lock  and  key,  and  had  decided  long 
ago  that  he  should  never  return  to  his  native  country.  No 
one  at  the  council  probably  attached  the  slightest  import- 
ance to  the  protestations  against  Hus's  imprisonment,  which 
Sigismund  still  thought  it  politic  to  make.  The  members  of 
the  council  were  now  entirely  absorbed  in  the  conflict  between 
the  papacy  and  the  college  of  cardinals.  The  position  of  Sigis- 
mund was  a  difficult  one.  Immediately  after  his  arrival  at 
Constance,  Baldassare  Cossa  had  attempted  to  win  him  over 
to  his  side  by  the  offer  of  a  gift  of  200,000  florins.1  The 
emperor  declined  this  offer,  probably  considering  the  pope's 
position  as  already  hopeless,  or  distrusting  his  promise.  It 
appeared  certain  that  even  the  laxity  of  morals  of  that  period, 
almost  inconceivable  as  we  now  consider  it,  would  in  the  long 
run  not  accept  a  man  such  as  the  diavolo  cardinale  as  head  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  Sigismund  therefore  arrived  at  the  con- 
clusion that  it  was  only  by  forcing  John  XXIII.,  as  well  as 
Gregory  XII.  and  Benedict  XIII. ,  to  abdicate  that  the  termina- 
tion of  the  schism  could  be  assured. 

Sigismund  therefore  soon  assumed  a  conciliatory  attitude 
towards    the    council.     He    entirely    gave    up    his    insincere 

1  Dr.  Aschbach  {Geschichte  Kaiser  Sigmunds,  vol.  ii.  p.  38),  who  makes 
this  statement,  founds  it  on  documentary  evidence.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
character  either  of  Sigismund  or  of  Baldassare  Cossa  to  render  it  improbable. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  227 

demand  that  Hus  should  be  released  from  prison,  and  in 
contradiction  to  his  former,  probably  also  disingenuous,  desire 
that  the  council  should  first  devote  its  attention  to  church- 
reform,  he  now  consented  to  its  first  discussing  the  schism. 
The  negotiations  between  John  XXIII.  and  Sigismund, 
between  the  pope  and  the  college  of  cardinals,  the  dissensions 
between  the  cardinals  and  the  other  members  of  the  council — 
all  these  events  here  require  but  brief  mention.  To  exercise 
a  certain  pressure  on  John  XXIII.,  it  was  decided  that  the 
council  should  not  be  considered  as  a  continuation  of  that  of 
Pisa,  which  had  deposed  Popes  Gregory  and  Benedict.  Re- 
presentatives of  these  pontiffs  were,  therefore,  allowed  to 
appear  before  the  council  and  the  emperor.  The  representa- 
tives of  Gregory  declared  that  their  master  was  willing  to 
renounce  the  papal  throne  if  John  and  Benedict  did  likewise, 
and  Benedict's  envoys  expressed  themselves  in  a  manner  that 
was  interpreted  as  expressing  a  similar  intention.  John 
XXIII. ,  however,  who  denied  the  analogy  between  his  own 
case  and  that  of  Gregory  and  Benedict,  who  had  been  deposed 
by  the  Council  of  Pisa,  took  up  a  very  intransigent  attitude. 
His  partisans  among  the  members  of  the  council,  however, 
constantly  diminished  in  number,  particularly  after  a  docu- 
ment attributed  to  an  Italian  priest  had  been  circulated,  i_ 
which  contained  a  detailed  account  of  all  the  crimes  and  sins 
committed  by  Baldassare  Cossa.  The  document,  probably 
published  for  the  purpose  of  intimidating  the  pope,  was 
promptly  suppressed,  but  many  of  the  unspeakable  accusa- 
tions contained  in  it  were  embodied  in  the  act  of  deposition 
of  John  XXIII.,  which  was  published  on  May  25,  1415.  A 
resolution  of  the  council  had  meanwhile  altered  the  system  of 
voting  at  its  deliberations,  and  had  greatly  reduced  the  power 
of  the  minor  Italian  ecclesiastics,  who  were  Pope  John's 
principal  adherents.  He  therefore  determined  to  yield.  At  a 
general  meeting  of  the  council  held  on  February  16,  in  the 
presence  of  Sigismund,  Cardinal  Zabarella  read  out  a  state- 


228  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

ment  of  John  XXIII.  He  declared  that  he  was  prepared  of 
his  own  accord  and  for  the  good  of  the  church  to  descend  from 
the  throne  of  St.  Peter  if  the  two  claimants  to  the  papacy,  who 
had  been  deposed  and  condemned  as  heretics  by  the  Council 
of  Pisa,  would  in  a  manner  and  at  a  time  which  he  would 
determine  in  accordance  with  the  members  of  the  council, 
renounce  the  titles  which  they  had  usurped.1  This  declaration, 
and  another  which  John  afterwards  submitted,  were  con- 
sidered insufficient,  and  a  document  drawn  up  by  members  of 
the  council  and  transmitted  to  the  pope  by  Sigismund  was 
rejected  by  him.  He  declared  that  the  wording  of  the  docu- 
ment presented  to  him  was  almost  identical  with  that  of 
the  document  containing  the  renunciation  of  Gregory  XII., 
between  whose  case  and  his  own  there  was,  Pope  John  main- 
tained, a  very  considerable  difference.  Finally,  on  March  I, 
John  XXIII.  accepted  and  signed  a  document  2  which  con- 
tained a  formal  renunciation  of  the  papal  throne.  He 
declared  that  of  his  own  free  will  and  for  the  sake  of  the  peace 
of  the  church,  he  entirely  renounced  all  claims  to  the  papal 
throne,  and  that  he  made  no  other  condition  except  that 
Peter  of  Luna  and  Angelo  Correr,  known  in  their  obediences 
as  Benedict  XIII.  and  Gregory  XII.,  should  do  likewise. 
This  renunciation  was  received  with  universal  rejoicings,  and 
when  John  XXIII.  on  the  following  day  solemnly  confirmed  it 
by  his  oath  in  the  cathedral  before  the  members  of  the  council 
and  the  emperor,  all  present  burst  into  tears. 

Baldassare  Cossa — as  he  now  again  became — though  "  en- 
trapped," as  he  would  have  expressed  it,  and  daunted  for  a 
moment,  was  by  no  means  at  the  end  of  his  resources.  It  has 
already  been  mentioned  that  Cossa  had  on  his  journey  to 
Constance  met  Duke  Frederick  of  Austria,  and  that  a  thorough 
understanding  had  sprung  up  between  them.  This  was  of 
greatest  importance  to  the  pope,  as  the  territory  of  the  Habs- 

1  Von  der  Hardt,  Magnum  oecumenicum  Constantiense  Concilium,  T.  ii. 
P.  viii.  p.  233. 

a  Printed  by  Von  der  Hardt,  T.  ii.  P.  iv.  p.  45. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  229 

burg  prince  extended  to  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Constance. 
Frederick,  who  had  become  a  mortal  enemy  of  the  house  of 
Luxemburg,  was  by  no  means  unwilling  to  frustrate  the  plans 
of  Sigismund  and  to  render  the  council  abortive.  Probably 
immediately  after  his  renouncement,  Cossa  determined  to 
leave  Constance  and  to  fly  to  Schafhausen,  the  nearest  city 
within  the  territory  of  Duke  Frederick.  He  was,  however, 
obliged  to  act  with  great  caution.  It  was  rumoured  at  Con- 
stance that  he  intended  to  leave  the  city,  and  this  rumour  was 
intensified  by  the  fact  that  he  refused  to  conform  to  the 
formalities  necessary  to  render  his  renunciation  absolute,  and 
thus  obstructed  the  proceedings  of  the  council.  This  caused 
great  indignation  among  the  members  of  that  assembly, 
and  at  one  of  its  meetings  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury  is  said  to 
have  declared  that  Cossa  deserved  to  be  burnt  at  the  stake. 
According  to  Dietrich  of  Niem,  Cossa  made  another  offer  of 
money  to  Sigismund,  and  on  being  questioned  by  the  emperor 
with  regard  to  his  future  plans  formally  protested  that  he  had 
no  intention  of  leaving  Constance  before  the  council  was  dis- 
solved. The  cunning  Italian  did  not  think  it  necessary  to 
add  that,  according  to  his  belief,  his  own  departure  would 
necessarily  entail  the  dissolution  of  the  council. 

On  March  20  Baldassare  Cossa  effected  his  escape.  He 
had  settled  in  accord  with  Duke  Frederick  that  a  tournament, 
under  the  auspices  of  the  duke,  should  on  that  day  be  held 
outside  the  walls  of  Constance.  While  all  the  citizens  were 
watching  the  proceedings,  Cossa  made  his  escape,  riding  in 
disguise  to  Ermattingen,  whence  a  boat  that  was  waiting  con- 
veyed him  to  Schafhausen.  Duke  Frederick  followed  him  as 
soon  as  he  was  able  to  leave  the  place  of  tournament  without 
attracting  attention,  and  joined  him  at  Schafhausen.  Their 
departure  caused  a  panic  at  Constance,  and  it  seemed  probable 
for  a  moment  that  the  council  would  break  up.  The  papal 
soldiers  who  guarded  Hus  left  the  city  shortly  after  their 
master,  but  Sigismund,  as  will  be  mentioned  later,  did  not  use 


23o  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

this  opportunity  to  set  the  prisoner  free.  In  consequence  of 
the  energy  of  Sigismund,  aided  by  the  influence  of  John 
Gerson,  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Paris,  a  rupture  was 
averted,  and  the  council  continued  its  sittings.  At  the 
memorable  meeting  of  that  assembly  on  March  30,  the  superior- 
ity of  a  general  council  over  the  pope  was  proclaimed,1  and  it 
was  also  declared  that  all  future  decrees  of  Pope  John  XXIII. 
should  be  invalid.  Through  the  influence  of  Sigismund  the 
council  also  took  proceedings  against  Duke  Frederick  of 
Austria,  on  whom  Sigismund  pronounced  the  imperial  ban. 
He  also  declared  war  on  him,  and  proclaimed  that  all  should  be 
free  to  acquire  any  portion  of  Frederick's  territory  which  they 
might  conquer.  The  Swiss,  who  had  by  a  recent  treaty 
pledged  themselves  under  oath  not  to  attack  Frederick,  were 
informed  by  the  council  that,  as  they  had  pledged  themselves 
to  a  heretic,  the  oath  was  invalid,  and  that  they  were  justified 
in  waging  war  against  the  Duke  of  Austria.  It  is  beyond  my 
purpose  to  enter  into  details  concerning  the  campaign  that 
followed.  Frederick  was  defeated  everywhere,  and  was 
obliged  to  proceed  to  Constance  and  there  make  his  humble 
submission  to  the  emperor.  Pope  John  XXIII.  fled  from 
Schafhausen  before  the  surrender  of  the  town  to  the  imperial 
forces.  He  first  proceeded  to  Laufenburg,  and  then  to  Frei- 
burg in  Breisgau,  from  where  he  addressed  a  letter  to  the 
council  proposing  an  agreement.  The  terms  he  offered  were, 
however,  rejected.  From  Freiburg  Cossa  went  to  Breisach, 
and  here,  in  his  usual  tortuous  manner,  entered  into  negotia- 
tions with  the  envoys  sent  to  him  by  the  council.  Meanwhile, 
however,  Duke  Frederick  had  submitted  to  the  emperor,  and 
had  among  other  stipulations  agreed  to  give  up  all  support 
of  Baldassare  Cossa.  The  latter  returned  to  Freiburg,  and 
now  gave  up  all  attempts  of  resistance.  Accompanied  by  the 
representatives  of  the  council,  and  guarded  by  300  Hungarian 

1  This  declaration  of  the  Council  of  Constance  was  often  mentioned  when 
the  question  of  papal  infallibility  was  under  discussion. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE 


231 


soldiers  sent  by  Sigismimd,  he  proceeded  to  Radolfzell,  there 
to  await  his  final  sentence.     He  was  here  informed  of  the 
decree   published   by   the   council   on   May   25,   which,   after 
enumerating  all  his  crimes,  declared  him  to  be  "  an  abettor  of 
simoniacs,  a  mirror  of  infamy,  an  idolator  of  the  flesh  and  one 
whom  all  who  knew  him  considered  a  devil  incarnate,"  and 
proclaimed    his    deposition    from    the    papal    throne.1     Cossa 
offered  no  further  resistance,   and  gave  up  the  insignia  of 
papacy  without    any    opposition.     From    Radolfzell   he   was 
conveyed  to  Gottlieben,  a  castle  about  eight  miles  from  Con- 
stance, which  for  some  time  served  also  as  a  prison  for  Hus. 
As  he  was  suspected  of  intriguing  with  his  Italian  friends  in 
Constance,   Sigismund  placed  him  in  the  custody  of  Louis 
Count  Palatine,  by  whose  order  he  was  removed  to  the  castle 
of  Heidelberg.     He  remained  there  up  to  the  termination  of 
the  Council  of  Constance.     He  soon  made  his  peace  with  the 
Roman  Church,  and  submitted  to  Pope  Martin  V.,  by  whom 
he  was  again  created  a  cardinal.     He  retired  to  Florence, 
where  he  died  on  December  22,  1418.     His  tomb  in  the  Bat- 
tisterio  by  Michelozzo  and  Donatello  is  a  noble  work  of  the 
early  Italian  renaissance.     It  is  striking  to  contrast  his  end 
with  that  of  Hus.     While  the  diavolo  cardinale  died  surrounded 
with  all  honours  and  was  buried  in  a  magnificent  tomb  that  is 
still  admired  by  all  visitors  to  Florence,  Hus  died  by  that 
hideous  and  painful  death  which  mediaeval  Christianity  seems 
to  have  borrowed  from  Nero,  while  his  ashes  were  scattered 
and  thrown  into  the  Rhine. 

Before  returning  to  Hus,  who  remained  imprisoned  in  and 
near  Constance  during  the  momentous  events  that  occurred 
in  that  city,  it  will  be  necessary  to  refer  to  events  in  Bohemia 
that  had  considerable  influence  on  the  fate  of  Hus.  The 
pious  congregation  at  Bethlehem  and  the  Bohemian  patriots 
and  church-reformers  generally  had  been  anxious  for  the 
safety  of  Hus  from  the  moment  that  he  had  crossed  the 

1  The  decree  of  the  council  is  printed  by  Von  der  Hardt. 


4- 


■ 


232  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

boundaries  of  his  native  land.  Many  previous  treacherous 
acts  of  Sigismund,  particularly  those  that  were  connected  with 
his  brother  Venceslas,  were  in  the  memory  of  all.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  intense  interest  in  the  fate  of  Hus  that  was 
general  among  the  citizens  of  Prague,  theological  reflection  and 
discussion  became  their  constant  and  all-absorbing  occupation. 
Only  a  few  weeks  after  the  departure  of  Hus  a  religious  inno- 
vation was  introduced,  which,  though  only  a  return  to  a  very 
ancient  tradition,  yet  greatly  irritated  the  opponents  of  church- 
reform.  Lawrence  of  Brezova  writes,1  "  In  the  year  of  the 
incarnation  1414,  the  reverend  and  noble  Magister  Jacobellus 
of  Stribro  (Mies),  bachelor  of  holy  theology,  with  the  support 
of  other  priests,  began  to  administer  the  venerable  and  divine 
sacrament  of  eucharistic  communion  in  the  two  kinds,  that  is 
to  say,  in  the  species  of  bread  and  of  wine,  in  the  famed  and 
magnificent  city  of  Prague."  The  new  custom  was  first 
adopted  in  the  churches  of  St.  Adalbertus  in  the  new  town  and 
St.  Martin-in-the-Wall,  St.  Michael,  and  the  Bethlehem  chapel 
in  the  old  town.  The  influence  of  this  step  on  the  fate  of  Hus, 
and  yet  more  on  the  subsequent  Hussite  movement,  was  very 
great.  It  has  long  and  often  been  discussed  why  the  question 
of  communion  in  the  two  kinds,  or  utraquism  as  it  soon  began 
to  be  called,  acquired  such  great  importance  in  Bohemia.  The 
formerly  general  supposition  that  the  tradition  of  communion 
in  the  two  kinds  continued  from  the  time  when  Bohemia  and 
Moravia  first  received  Christianity  from  the  East  has,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  recent  works  of  Bohemian  scholars,  particularly 
of  Professor  Kalousek,2  become  very  improbable.  It  is  also 
certain  that  Jacobellus — in  many  respects  a  pupil  of  Matthew 
of  Janov — did  not  derive  from  Matthew  his  utraquistic  teach- 
ing. Matthew  indeed  wrote  and  spoke  in  favour  of  frequent 
communion  but  did  not  mention  communion  in  the  two  kinds. 

1  Laurentii  de  Brezova,  "  Historia  Hussitica  "  (Fontes  Rerum  Bohevricarum, 
vol.  v.  p.  338). 

*  Particularly  in  his  O  historii  Kalicha  v  dobach  predhnsitskych  (Story  of 
the  Chalice  in  Prehussite  Times). 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  233 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  both  these  demands  were 
closely  connected  in  the  minds  of  the  Bohemian  people,  to 
whom  it  appeared  unjust  that  the  priests — among  whom  were 
many  of  the  vilest  men  in  the  land — should  claim  to  receive 
holy  communion  more  frequently  and  in  a  more  complete 
manner  than  pious  laymen.  It  is  on  the  whole  most  probable 
that  the  deep  study  of  the  evangelical  words  pronounced  at 
the  institution  of  the  sacrament  convinced  Jacobellus  of  the 
lawfulness  of  utraquism. 

The  custom  of  administering  communion  in  the  two  kinds 
began  at  Prague  about  the  time  when  Hus  was  dangerously 
ill  at  the  Dominican  monastery,  and  he  was  not  immediately 
informed  of  it.  The  news  reached  Palec  more  rapidly  and  he 
accused  Hus  of  being  responsible  for  the  teaching  of  utraquism. 
The  latter  was  probably  then  too  ill  to  understand  the  drift 
of  Palec's  words,  particularly  as  the  question  of  utraquism  had 
not  been  discussed  before  his  departure  from  Prague.  Early 
in  January  1415  Hus's  health  began  to  improve  and  he  was 
about  this  time  moved  to  a  less  unsanitary  cell  in  the  Dominican 
monastery.  To  the  papal  commissioners  who  visited  him  he 
declared  that  the  articles  of  accusation  against  him  were 
largely  drawn  from  passages  quoted  wrongly  from  his  writings, 
and  that  the  articles  also  attributed  to  him  statements  which 
he  had  never  made.  The  commissioners  merely  answered  that 
the  articles  were  the  work  of  his  Bohemian  enemies.  Michael 
de  causis  was  meanwhile  more  indefatigable  than  ever.  He 
was  more  constantly  in  the  prison  than  even  the  gaolers,  acting 
as  spy,  and  also  abstracting  the  letters  sent  or  received  by  Hus. 
To  incite  the  commissioners  against  Hus  he  gave  them  totally 
untruthful  information  concerning  him,  calculated  to  render 
him  odious.  Thus  when  visiting  Hus  one  of  the  commis- 
sioners said:  "  Thou  possessest  70,000  florins;  "  x  another, 
"  Thou  hast  founded  a  new  law;  "  yet  another,  "  Thou  then 

1  This  at  that  time  signified  an  enormous  sum;  according  to  Dr.  Flajshans, 
about  4,000,000  Austrian  crowns  (^200,000). 


234  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

hast  taught  all  these  articles."  Hus  could  but  answer:  "  Why 
do  you  wrong  me?  "  x  The  ignoble  Michael  de  causis  was 
allowed  to  accompany  the  commissioners  on  their  visits  to 
Hus  and  even  grossly  to  insult  him  in  their  presence — a  fact 
which  alone  proves  what  a  wretched  parody  of  justice  the 
whole  trial  was.  There  is  little  doubt  that  this  licence  granted 
to  Michael  was  largely  the  result  of  the  vast  sums  of  money 
collected  and  distributed  by  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl.  Palec, 
though  also  demanding  that  Hus  should  be  immediately  exe- 
cuted, behaved  with  more  reserve  than  Michael.  Stephen 
Palec  was  a  narrow-minded  bigot,  but  not  an  unprincipled 
scoundrel  like  Michael  de  causis. 

One    of    the    Bohemian    letters — they    are    always    more 
impressive  than  the  Latin  ones — written  by  Hus  at  this  time 
and  dated  January  19,  1415,  gives  a  good  insight  into   his 
feelings.     The  letter,  addressed  to  the  citizens  of  Prague,  runs 
thus :   "  May  God  deign  to  be  with  you,  that  you  may  resist  the 
evil,  the  devil,  the  world,  and  the  flesh.     Dearest,  I  beg  you — 
sitting  in  prison,  of  which  I  am  not  ashamed,  for  I  suffer  in 
good  hope  for  the  Lord  God,  who  graciously  afflicted  me  with 
a  severe  illness,  but  has  now  restored  me  to  health  and  who 
permitted  that  those  should  become  my  enemies  to  whom  I 
did  much  good  and  whom  I  loved  much — I  beg  you  2  to  pray 
to  God  for  me  that  He  may  deign  to  be  with  me;    for  it  is 
through  Him  alone  and  through  your  prayers  that  I  hope  to 
1  remain  in  His  grace  unto  my  death.     If  He  deigns  now  to  call 
!  me  to  Him,  be  it  according  to  His  holy  will;   if  He  deigns  to 
restore  me  to  you,  then  also  be  His  will  fulfilled.     Indeed  I 
require  much  help,  but  I  know  that  He  will  not  subject  me  to 
any  suffering  or  temptation  except  for  my  own,  and  for  your 
good,  so  that,  having  been  tested  and  having  remained  stead- 
fast, we  may  obtain  great  reward.     Be  it  known  to  you  that 

1  Flajshans,  Mistr  Jan  Hus,  pp.  415-416. 

2  Hus's  style  is  here  rather  involved.     It  is,  however,  so  characteristic  of 
the  writer  that  I  have  thought  it  best  to  translate  the  letter  literally. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  235 


2\k 


that  letter,  which  I  sent  to  you  after  starting  on  my  journey, 
has  become  public,  and  has  been  translated  wrongly  into 
Latin.  They  have  also  produced  so  many  articles  and  accusa^,  —  - 
tions  against  me  that  I  have  much  to  write  answering  them 
all  here  from  prison.  There  is  no  one  who  can  help  me  except 
our  merciful  Lord  Jesus  who  said:  I  will  give  you  a  mouth 
and  wisdom,  which  all  your  adversaries  shall  not  be  able  to 
gainsay  nor  resist.2  Remember,  dearest,  that  I  have  zealously 
worked  with  you,  and  that  I  always  hope  for  your  salvation, 
now  also  when  I  am  in  prison  and  much  tormented." 

On  March  20,  as  already  mentioned,  Pope  John  XXIII. 
escaped  from  Constance  in  disguise.  Hus  appears  at  that 
time  to  have  become  somewhat  more  hopeful,  perhaps  because 
a  few  friends  had  been  allowed  to  visit  him — a  great  solace  to 
a  man  whose  health  at  this  moment  was  again  failing  and 
who  had  lived  for  months  surrounded  only  by  enemies  and 
spies.  The  aged  Master  Christian  of  Prachatice  and  John  of 
Jesenice,  two  of  Hus's  comrades  during  the  long-protracted 
struggle  against  the  simonists  at  Prague,  visited  him,  not  heed- 
ing the  great  danger  which  they  incurred.  Hus  no  doubt 
informed  them  of  the  treachery  on  the  part  of  the  council  of 
which  he  had  been  the  victim,  and  they  both  succeeded  in 
escaping  from  Constance  during  the  troubles  that  followed  the 
flight  of  Cossa.  Jerome  of  Prague  also  appeared  for  a  short 
time  at  Constance,  though  Hus  had  begged  him  not  to  do  so. 
He  departed  again  almost  immediately.  Here,  as  ever,  the 
presence  of  Jerome  was  very  harmful  to  Hus.  Another  visitor 
was  Lord  Venceslas  of  Duba,  the  trusted  friend  and  protector 
of  Hus.     He  burst  into  tears  on  seeing  him,  and  informed  him 

1  In  this  letter — written  in  Bohemian — Hus  had  stated  that  he  had  left 
Prague  without  a  letter  of  safe-conduct.  We  do  not  know  what  form  this 
statement  took  when  translated  into  Latin  by  Michael  and  Palec.  Hus  was 
travelling,  accompanied  by  representatives  of  Sigismund  who  approved  of  his 
not  waiting  at  Prague  for  the  arrival  of  the  letter.  Some  modern  apologists 
of  Sigismund  have,  following  the  example  of  Hus's  persecutors,  maintained 
that  the  safe-conduct  became  invalid  because  Hus  did  not  carry  it  on  his 
journey. 

1  St.  Luke  xxi.  15. 


236  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

of  the  steps  which  the  nobles  of  his  country  were  taking  for 
his  defence.  These  attempts  at  intervention  on  the  part  of 
Hus's  countrymen  have  already  been  mentioned,  and  I  shall 
have  again  to  refer  to  them  later.  Duba  may  also  have 
informed  Hus  of  the  intended  flight  of  Cossa,  as  his  intention 
of  escaping  from  Constance  was  mooted  in  the  city  several 
days  before  the  event  actually  took  place.  This  would  inspire 
hope  in  the  minds  of  both  Hus  and  Duba.  Cossa  departed, 
Sigismund  was  undisputed  master  of  the  city  of  Constance, 
and  it  was  entirely  in  his  power  to  liberate  Hus.  On  March 
24,  Palm  Sunday,  Hus  wrote  to  his  friends  at  Constance 
informing  them  that  his  guards  had  left  him.  On  the  same 
evening  an  armed  force  of  a  hundred  and  seventy  men,  sent 
by  the  Bishop  of  Constance,  seized  Hus  and  conveyed  him  to 
the  bishop's  castle  of  Gottlieben.1  Immediately  after  the 
departure  of  Cossa,  Sigismund,  fearing  that  Hus  might  escape 
him,  conferred  with  the  most  important  members  of  the  council, 
and  it  was  decided  that  Hus  should  be  placed  in  the  custody 
of  the  Bishop  of  Constance.  That  Sigismund  failed  to  use 
this  opportunity  of  liberating  Hus  greatly  disappointed  the 
Bohemians,  and  has  also  caused  the  surprise  of  some  modern 
writers.  A  closer  study  of  the  character  of  Sigismund  would 
show  that  he  had  firmly  resolved  that  Hus  should  never  leave 
Constance,  or  at  least  never  return  to  his  native  land. 

The  imprisonment  at  Gottlieben  was  for  Hus  in  every  way 
a  change  for  the  worse.  The  tower  at  Gottlieben,  still  known 
as  the  "  Hussenthurm,"  in  one  of  the  highest  cells  of  which  he 
was  confined,  was  indeed,  from  a  sanitary  point  of  view,  pre- 
ferable to  the  Dominican  monastery  at  Constance.  But  Hus 
now  for  the  first  time  endured  all  the  horrors  of  a  mediaeval 
prison.  He  was  chained  to  a  post,  at  day  time  by  the  hands 
only,  at  night  also  by  the  feet,  and  suffered  continually  from 
hunger  and  thirst.  His  German  guards  were  allowed  to  treat 
him  with  the  utmost  cruelty,  while  the  Italian  soldiers  of 

1  On  the  Rhine  below  Constance,  now  in  the  Swiss  canton  of  Thurgan. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  237 

Cossa  had  treated  him  with  cordial,  if  contemptuous,  kindness. 
It  is  certain  that  it  was  intended,  according  to  the  methods  of 
the  Inquisition,  entirely  to  break  his  spirit  by  what  was  prac- 
tically torture.  It  was  hoped  that  he  would  thus  be  induced 
to  confess  anything  and  everything  which  it  was  desirable 
that  he  should  confess.  He  had  hitherto  been  allowed  to 
write  and  to  receive  letters,  but  all  this  was  stopped  at  Gott- 
lieben.  We  know,  therefore,  little  of  what  occurred  there,  and 
a  veil  has  perhaps  mercifully  been  thrown  over  Hus's  stay 
at  Gottlieben. 

The  powers  of  the  commissioners  appointed  by  Pope  John 
XXIII.  were  considered  as  having  ended  with  the  flight  of 
that  pontiff.  The  council,  in  which  the  party  of  the  cardinals 
now  had  the  upper  hand,  appointed  Cardinals  D'Ailly,  Filastre, 
and  Zabarella  to  act  as  commissioners,  and  continue  the 
examination  of  Hus.  Of  these  men  D'Ailly  was  the  most 
prominent,  and  his  marked  hostility  to  Hus  has  often  been 
noted.  The  active  part  taken  by  the  Cardinal  of  Cambray  in 
the  condemnation  of  Hus  is  indeed  the  best  known  part  of  his 
career.  As  Dr.  Tschackert,  the  biographer  of  D'Ailly,  writes: 
"  D'Ailly  now  showed  that  historically  memorable  activity 
which  throws  on  the  not  otherwise  very  bright  record  of  his 
life  a  shadow  that  is  all  the  darker,  the  brighter  appears  the 
memory  of  him  whose  death  at  the  stake  he  helped  to  bring 
about."1  The  reasons  for  D'Ailly's  hostility  to  Hus  are 
numerous.  The  dispute  between  nominalists  and  realists  no  I 
doubt  played  a  part,  but  Hus's  repeated  eulogy  of  the  poverty 
of  the  clergy  must  have  been  particularly  obnoxious  to  D'Ailly. 
This  very  important  motive  seems  to  have  been  kept  in  the 
background  by  many  historians.  D'Ailly  was  noted  for  his 
greed  for  money.  His  eager  endeavours  to  secure  benefices 
and  to  amass  riches  exposed  him  to  the  sometimes  very  severe 
comments  of  his  contemporaries.2 

1  Dr.  Tschackert,  Peter  v.  Ailly,  p.  225. 

1  See  the   "  tractatus   Bonifacii   (Ferrer)   prioris  Carthusiae  majoris  "   in 


238  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

The  new  commissioners  visited  Hus  several  times  at 
Gottlieben.  They  found  him  weak  through  hunger  and  suffer- 
ing, broken  in  spirit,  meek,  and  patient.  It  cannot  be  con- 
sidered generous  on  the  part  of  D'Ailly  that  he  should,  when 
Hus  at  his  trial  gave  a  somewhat  spirited  reply,  have  taunted 
him  with  the  remark,  "  You  spoke  more  meekly  when  you 
were  in  the  tower."  The  council,  now  freed  from  Baldassare 
Cossa  and  by  no  means  desirous  of  entering  on  the  disagree- 
able subject  of  church-reform,  devoted  all  its  energy  to  the 
extirpation  of  heresy.  Before  finally  coming  to  a  conclusion 
with  regard  to  the  fate  of  Hus,  they  published  a  declaration 
enumerating  forty-five  articles  taken  from  the  works  of 
Wycliffe  which  had  been  condemned  as  heretical  by  the 
council  held  in  Rome  in  1412.  As  it  could  be  proved  that 
similar  and  in  some  cases  identical  statements  were  con- 
tained in  the  works  of  Hus,  this  in  the  opinion  of  all 
signified  the  condemnation  of  Hus.  Hus  had  indeed,  as 
has  been  frequently  mentioned,  declared  that  he  did  not 
identify  himself  with  Wycliffe,  that  he  did  not  accept  all 
his  views,  and  that  he  might  have  understood  some  of  them 
in  a  sense  different  from  that  accepted  by  the  council.  Any 
one  who  has  even  a  slight  acquaintance  with  the  writings 
of  Wycliffe,  "  his  voluminous  writings  in  scholastic  Latin, 
crabbed,  harsh,  and  intricate  to  the  last  degree,"  as  Dr.  Bigg 
writes,  will  consider  this  very  probable.  Hus  may  have 
wished  to  state  this  before  the  council,  but  was  never  given  a 
fair  hearing  there.  Any  remark  made  by  him  that  appeared 
inconvenient  was  always  interrupted. 

I  must  now  refer  to  the  last  attempts,  previous  to  the  trial, 
made  by  the  Bohemians  to  save  their  countryman.  The 
nobles  of  Moravia  met  at  Brno  (Briinn)  on  May  8,  141 5,  and 
sent   a  spirited  remonstrance  to   Sigismund.     They  stated * 

Martene  et  Durand,  Thesaurus,  II.,  p.  1436.     The  writer,  a  firm  adherent  of 
Pope  Benedict  XIII.,  may  have  been  somewhat  prejudiced  against  D'Ailly. 
1  Palacky,  Document  a. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  239 

that  they  must  again  complain  of  the  treatment  of  "John 
Hus,  a  just  man  and  preacher,  a  faithful  and  praiseworthy 
furtherer  of  the  Holy  Gospel,  of  whom  no  evil  is  known  in 
these  lands.  Yet,"  they  continued,  "  this  dear  master  and 
Christian  preacher  has  been  imprisoned  because  of  false  and 
foul  calumnies  spread  by  evil  men,  slanderers  and  enemies  of 
God's  word.  Through  the  dishonourable  calumnies  against 
this  man,  all  the  lands  of  the  Bohemian  crown  and  the  Slavic 
nation  x  have  been  guiltlessly  defamed.  He  (Hus)  went  freely 
without  any  compulsion  to  the  universal  council  at  Constance, 
and  wished  as  a  good  and  faithful  Christian  to  free  himself  and 
his  country  from  unjust  accusations  before  a  general  council 
of  the  whole  Christian  world.  He  received  from  your  Majesty 
a  letter  of  safe-conduct,  though  so  good  a  man  did  not  require 
one."  After  further  remarks  concerning  the  safe-conduct,  the 
letter  continues  thus:  "  But  also  we  hear  that  when  the  pope 
fled,  as  well  as  those  who  guarded  him  (Hus),  he  was  taken 
from  his  prison — it  is  best  known  to  God  by  whose  order — 
and  transferred  to  a  more  cruel  prison  belonging  to  the  Bishop 
of  Constance,  where  he  has  been  cruelly  and  in  an  unchristian 
fashion  fettered  by  the  hands  and  feet  and  denied  even  that 
amount  of  justice  which  it  would  be  seemly  to  grant  to  a 
heathen."  The  letter  ends  with  the  words:  "  We  trust  that 
your  Majesty  will  grant  your  full  attention  to  this  matter,  as 
is  fitting  for  the  kind  and  gracious  heir  and  successor  to  our 
land."  A  similar  letter  was  sent  from  Prague  four  days  later 
by  the  assembled  nobles  of  Bohemia.  Both  letters  bear  the 
signatures  of  almost  all  the  men  then  prominent  in  Bohemia 
and  Moravia — if  we  except  the  dignitaries  of  the  church.  The 
letters,  written  in  Bohemian,  were  translated  into  Latin  by 
Palacky  as  long  ago  as  1869,  but  they  have  not  been  much 
noticed  by  historians.  The  Bohemian  nobles  at  Constance — 
besides  those  who  had  accompanied  Hus,  a  few  others  had 
arrived,   wishing  to  be  near  him  in  the  hour  of  danger — 

1  Or  "  language."     The  Bohemian  word  jazyk  has  both  significations. 


240  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

resolved  also  to  make  a  last  attempt  to  save  the  life  of  their 
countryman.  Their  step  was  not  without  danger;  they  had 
no  power  to  act  as  representatives  of  King  Venceslas,  who 
declined  all  relations  with  the  council.  Other  Bohemians, 
noted  members  of  the  university,  had  been  driven  out  of 
Constance  by  the  emissaries  of  Michael  de  causis,  and  some 
had  with  difficulty  escaped  with  their  lives.  The  nobles  were 
but  too  well  aware  of  the  treachery  innate  in  Sigismund, 
though  they  may  have  thought  that  he  would  at  least  during 
the  lifetime  of  Hus  endeavour  to  avoid  a  general  uprising  in 
Bohemia.  Associated  with  the  Bohemians  were  a  few  Polish 
noblemen.  They  were — in  distinction  from  the  Bohemians — 
present  as  representatives  of  the  King  of  Poland,  therefore 
shielded  by  diplomatic  immunity  and  restricted  by  the 
customary  reserve  of  diplomatists.  Yet  they  did  not  hesitate 
to  intervene  in  favour  of  a  member  of  the  kindred  Bohemian 
nation  who  in  Poland  also  was  by  many  already  considered 
as  a  saint. 

Mladenovic  gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  intervention  of 
|  the  nobles  of  Poland  and  Bohemia  in  favour  of  Hus.1  "  While 
he  (Hus),"  Mladenovic  writes,  "  was  lying  in  fetters  in  the  fort 
(Gottlieben),  the  noble  lords,  knights,  and  squires  of  the 
Bohemian  and  Polish  nations  were  moved  by  their  love  of 
truth,  and  of  the  honour  and  fame  of  the  illustrious  kingdom 
of  Bohemia,  which  had  now  become  a  laughing-stock,  and  an 
infamous  object  of  shame  to  its  enemies,  even  to  strangers  of 
the  meanest  birth.  They  therefore  resolved  to  recover  and 
restore  its  ancient  glory,  of  which  they  were  heirs,  and  they 
determined  to  insist  that  John  Hus,  once  their  preacher  and 
instructor,  now  deprived  of  all  human  aid,  should  at  least 
have  the  opportunity  of  publicly  expressing  his  opinions." 
On  May  13,  the  nobles  drew  up  a  statement  which  was  to 

1  Relatio,  pp.  256-272.  Only  a  brief  account  of  the  prolonged  negotiations, 
in  consequence  of  which  at  least  the  semblance  of  a  public  trial  was  granted 
to  Hus,  can  be  given  here. 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  241 

be  brought  before  the  council.  They  complained  that  Hus,  I 
"  who  had  never  been  convicted  or  condemned  or  even  heard,"  ;, 
should  have  been  imprisoned.  They  demanded  that  he 
should  be  publicly  heard  that  he  might  render  account  of  his 
faith.  A  passage  near  the  end  of  the  document  caused  some 
sensation.  It  stated  that  enemies  of  the  illustrious  kingdom 
of  Bohemia  had  said  that  the  sacrament  of  the  most  holy 
blood  of  the  Lord  had  been  carried  about  there  in  flasks,  that 
cobblers  had  confessed  the  faithful  and  had  administered  the 
sacrament.  The  nobles  begged  that  these  calumnies  should 
not  be  believed,  and  that  the  delators  should  be  named,  that 
they  might  receive  condign  punishment  from  the  King  of 
Bohemia.  The  last  words  contained  a  direct  accusation 
against  Michael  de  causis  and  the  other  Bohemian  informers, 
as  well  as  against  their  leader,  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl. 

This  statement  was  by  Peter  of  Mladenovic  read  to  the 
assembled  council,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  members  of  the  four 
"  nations  "  into  which  the  council  had  some  time  previously 
been  divided  to  limit  the  influence  of  the  Italian  partisans  of  I 
Baldassare  Cossa.  It  was  received  in  silence,  except  when  the 
passage  concerning  the  calumniators  of  Bohemia  was  read  out. 
Bishop  John  of  Litomysl,  rising  up  immediately,  exclaimed  in 
his  own  language:  "  Ha!  ha!  tot'se  mne  dotyce  a  mych."  ■ 
In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  council  on  May  16,  the  iron 
bishop  protested  against  the  accusation  that  he  was  a 
calumniator  of  his  country,  and  declared  that  the  communion 
of  laymen  in  the  two  kinds  had  led  or  at  least  would  lead  to 
many  abuses — a  statement  with  which  we  meet  constantly 
during  the  utraquist  controversy  in  Bohemia,  which  only 
ended  in  1620. 

The  council  sent  an  evasive  answer  written  by  the  Bishop  \ 
of  Carcassone,  and  the  nobles  of  Bohemia  protested  against 
the  statements  of  John  of  Litomysl  in  a  letter  that  was  prob- 
ably also  from  the  clever  though  prolix  pen  of  Mladenovic. 

1  "  Ha!   ha!     This  regards  me  and  my  friends." 


242  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

They  maintained  that  none  of  the  outrages  mentioned  by 
Bishop  John  had  actually  occurred.  It  is  a  fact  that,  though 
matters  changed  after  the  treacherous  murder  of  Hus,  no  act 
of  sacrilege  had  at  that  time  been  committed  in  Bohemia. 
The  Bohemians  also  again  appealed  to  the  Emperor  Sigismund, 
ian  act  that  does  more  credit  to  their  ingenuousness  than  to 
their  sagacity.  Sigismund,  who,  by  a  decree  of  April  8,  had 
revoked  all  letters  of  safe-conduct  previously  granted  by  him, 
now  shielded  himself  entirely  under  the  authority  of  the 
council  and  did  not  reply  to  the  appeal  of  the  Bohemians. 

None  the  less  the  Bohemians,  encouraged  by  the  news  that 
their  countrymen  at  Prague  and  Brno  had  protested  against 
the  imprisonment  of  Hus,  attempted  to  appeal  again  to  the 
council.  Mladenovic,  again  acting  as  spokesman,  delivered  a 
lengthy  speech  before  the  members  of  the  council  assembled 
,  in  the  refectory  of  the  minorite  monastery.  After  again 
referring  to  Sigismund's  letter  of  safe-conduct,  he  made  the 
important  suggestion  that  Hus,  who  had  been  neither  con- 
victed nor  condemned,  should  be  delivered  from  the  fetters 
and  chains  in  which  he  was  now  cruelly  imprisoned,  and 
should  be  placed  in  the  custody  of  some  bishops,  or  worthy 
men,  appointed  by  the  council,  who  would  examine  him  and 
confer  with  him,  when  he  had  recovered  his  health.  The 
nobles  of  Bohemia  were  meanwhile  prepared  to  provide 
sureties — men  who  would  not  break  their  faith  for  anything 
in  the  world,  and  who  would  guarantee  that  Hus  would  make 
no  attempt  whatever  to  escape  from  Constance  before  his 
case  was  judged. 

To  this  new  proposal  the  council  returned  an  immediate 
answer.  On  the  very  day  of  the  speech  of  Mladenovic — May  31 
— the  patriarch  of  Antioch,  in  the  name  of  the  delegates  of  the 
council,  declared  that  with  regard  to  the  alleged  misrepresenta- 
tion of  Hus's  statements,  those  acquainted  with  his  language 
would  decide.  As  the  men  thus  referred  to  were  the  Bishop 
of  Litomysl,  Palec,  and  Michael  de  causis,  his  bitterest  enemies 


HUS  AT  CONSTANCE  243 

and  most  venomous  calumniators,  the  injustice  was  flagrant. 
The  patriarch  further  stated  that  the  members  of  the  council 
would  not  liberate  Hus  if  a  thousand  sureties  were  brought 
forward,  for  it  would  be  against  their  conscience  to  place  such 
a  man,  whom  they  could  not  trust,  in  the  hands  of  sureties. 
The  delegates  of  the  council  were,  however,  willing  to  accede  to 
the  petition  of  the  lords  and  to  grant  Hus  a  fair  and  public 
hearing.  "  What  and  how  constituted  the  hearing  was,  and 
how  far  it  was  kindly  " — the  good  Mladenovic  adds — "  will  be 
seen  when  I  describe  the  doings  of  the  tribunal." 

The  Bohemian  lords  had  undoubtedly  obtained  a  success  l 
— the  only  one  they  achieved  during  their  arduous,  dangerous, 
and  from  the  first  hopeless,  campaign  in  favour  of  Hus.  Hus 
was,  at  least,  to  appear  before  his  judges.  Though  the  pro- 
ceedings at  his  trial  were  a  mere  parody  of  justice,  and  he 
was  scarcely  ever  allowed  to  speak,  his  appearance  was  in 
itself  a  mute  protest  against  the  tyranny  of  a  corrupt  hierarchy. 

1  Of  the  many  writers  on  the  trial  of  Hus  none  has  better  understood  this 
than  the  late  Mr.  Wratislaw.  He  writes  {John  Hus,  p.  261):  "  Instead  of 
a  secret  inquisition  and  secret  murder,  we  have  the  record  of  a  public  trial 
and  a  judicial  homicide,  in  which  we  are  at  a  loss  to  discover  any  valid  or 
reasonable  ground  of  condemnation."  The  book  of  Mr.  Wratislaw,  written 
nearly  thirty  years  ago,  is  still  valuable  though  it  has  become  somewhat 
antiquated. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   TRIAL   AND   DEATH   OF   HUS 

Though  the  council  had  been  obliged  to  grant  Hus  a  public 
hearing,  it  did  so  most  reluctantly  and  with  the  firm  intention 
that  he  should  be  declared  guilty  and  under  all  circumstances 
prevented  from  returning  to  Bohemia — on  this  Sigismund  laid 
great  stress.  During  a  deliberation  of  the  council,  which 
immediately  preceded  the  trial,  it  was  resolved  that,  should 
Hus  not  retract,  he  should  be  handed  over  to  the  secular 
authorities  to  receive  condign  punishment.  By  a  legal  fiction 
the  church  avoided  ordering  the  execution  of  the  sentence. 
Death  at  the  stake  was  the  penalty  for  heresy  according  to  a 
law  of  the  Emperor  Frederick  II.,  who,  as  Dr.  Lenz  writes  in 
his  clever  defence  of  the  conduct  of  the  council,1  "  cannot  be 
considered  a  friend  of  the  popes,  and  still  less  an  ultramon- 
tane." Though  the  matter  will  have  to  be  mentioned  again 
later,  it  should  here  already  be  stated  that  Sigismund  had 
pledged  his  honour  to  allow  Hus  to  return  to  Bohemia  from 
Constance,  whatever  sentence  might  have  been  passed  on  him 
there.  The  secular  authority  to  whom  Hus  should  have  been 
handed  over  was  his  own  sovereign,  King  Venceslas,  not  the 
burgomaster  of  Constance.  The  possibility  of  Hus's  retracting 
had  also  been  taken  into  consideration.  It  was  decided  that 
in  that  case  Hus  should,  in  punishment  of  the  scandal  which 
he  had  caused,  be  imprisoned  for  life  in  a  Swedish  monastery, 
in  a  cell  that  was  to  be  walled  up,  leaving  only  a  small  opening 
through  which  food  and  drink  were  to  be  handed  to  the 
prisoner.2 

1  Uceni  mistra  J  ana  Husi  (the  Teaching  of  Master  John  Hus),  p.  361. 
•  Dr.  Flajshans,  Mistr  Jan  Hus,  p.  361. 

244 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  245 

On  the  morning  of  June  5  Hus  was  conveyed  from  thel 
Tower  of  Gottlieben  to  the  monastery  of  the  Franciscan  order  f 
at  Constance,  which  was  to  be  the  last  of  his  prisons.  The 
members  of  the  council  who  were  to  interrogate  Hus,  with 
Cardinal  D'Ailly  as  their  head,  assembled  in  the  refectory  of 
the  Franciscan  monastery,  and  many  other  members  were  also 
present.  The  accusations  against  Hus  were  read  out  before , 
he  was  admitted  into  the  hall.  As  Mladenovic  writes  in  a 
passage  which  I  have  already  quoted,  many  statements  neveri 
made  by  Hus  were  attributed  to  him  and  many  passages', 
quoted  from  his  writings  had  been  falsified.  We  meet  with ' 
this  complaint  frequently,  and  it  appears  to  have  been  one  of 
the  principal  grievances  of  Hus.  He  began  now  to  see  that 
the  trial  was  a  mere  formality  by  means  of  which  Sigismund 
wished  to  appease  the  increasing  irritation  of  the  Bohemians. 
A  significant  incident  which  occurred  at  the  very  beginning 
of  the  trial  was  at  any  rate  sufficient  to  dispel  whatever  illu- 
sions Hus  and  his  companions  may  still  have  preserved. 
Before  Hus  appeared  in  the  hall  the  document  stating  the 
accusations  against  him,  which  have  been  so  often  mentioned, 
and  ending  with  his  condemnation  had  been  prepared  and  was 
shown  to  some  of  the  members  of  the  assembly.  A  young 
Bohemian  named  Oldrich  who  was  present 2  succeeded  in 
obtaining  a  glance  at  the  document  and  read  in  it  the  passage 
which  contained  the  condemnation  of  Hus  and  several  state- 
ments of  importance  for  the  trial.  A  forged  letter  was  referred 
to,  in  which  Hus  was  purported  to  have  written  that,  should 
he  retract  his  teaching  at  Constance,  such  a  retraction  was  to 
be  considered  as  obtained  by  force  and  therefore  invalid.3     It 

1  Between  the  cathedral  and  the  church  of  St.  Stephen.  The  building  is 
now  used  as  barracks. 

2  Lenfant,  Histoire  du  Concile  de  Constance  (p.  199)  and  Von  der  Hardt 
(T.  iv.  pp.  196,  306)  state  that  Mladenovic  himself  discovered  the  document. 
This  is  contradicted  by  Mladenovic's  own  report,  quoted  above.  Mladenovic 
cautiously  gives  only  the  initials  of  the  names  of  the  persons  concerned. 

1  "  Quale  mendacium!  Omnipotens  Deus."  Mladenovic  writes  with  not 
unnatural  indignation. 


246  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

was  intended  by  this  cunning  device  to  prevent  Hus's  regain- 
ing his  liberty,  even  should  he  retract  the  statements  to  which 
objection  was  made;  this,  as  he  repeatedly  declared,  he  was 
prepared  to  do,  if  contrary  evidence  were  produced.  Oldrich 
immediately  informed  Mladenovic  of  what  he  had  seen,  and 
the  latter  reported  to  Lord  Venceslas  of  Duba  and  John  of 
Chlum  that  the  sentence  on  Hus  had  already  been  drawn  up. 
The  Bohemian  nobles  appealed  to  Sigismund.  No  one  was 
more  anxious  than  was  the  King  of  Hungary  that  Hus  should, 
under  all  circumstances,  be  prevented  from  returning  to 
Bohemia.  He  was  not,  however,  under  the  circumstances, 
able  to  show  his  true  feelings,  and  indeed  feigned  anger  and 
indignation.  He  sent  Louis  Count  Palatine  and  Frederick 
Burgrave  of  Nuremberg  to  the  members  of  the  council,  ordering 
them  not  to  condemn  Hus  immediately,  but  first  to  grant 
him  a  hearing. 

Hus  was  now  introduced  into  the  hall.  He  had  previously 
sent  to  Lords  Duba  and  Chlum  the  original  manuscripts  of 
his  book  De  Ecclesia,  and  of  his  writings  against  Palec  and 
Stanislas  of  Znoymo.  The  articles  that  were  now  read  out 
contained  many  extracts  from  these  works,  but  whether  these 
quotations  were  genuine,  and  to  what  extent  they  were  the 
work  of  Palec  and  Michael  was  not  examined  during  the  so- 
called  trial.  Hus  contented  himself  with  declaring  that  if 
there  was  anything  evil  or  erroneous  in  his  writings,  he  was 
ready  humbly  to  amend  it.  After  the  articles,  the  depositions 
of  the  witnesses  were  read  out.  Hus  then  attempted  to  speak, 
but  was  immediately  interrupted  by  loud  cries  "  as  with  one 
voice."  Those  of  his  friends  who  had  been  unable  to  enter 
the  hall,  but  remained  outside,  heard  him  "  turning  now  to  the 
right,  now  to  the  left,  now  forward,  now  backward,  answering 
those  who  were  crying  out  at  him  and  assailing  him."  When 
he  wished  to  point  out  ambiguities  contained  in  the  act  of 
accusation  and  to  declare  that  the  accusers  had  interpreted 
certain  statements  contained   in   his  writings  in   a  manner 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  247 

different  from  that  which  he  had  intended,  even  louder  cries 
arose.  Some  screamed:  "  Abandon  all  sophistry,  say  Yes  or 
No;  "  others  began  to  deride  him.  The  tumult  became  yet 
greater  when  Hus  attempted  to  quote  the  holy  fathers  of  the 
church.  All  cried:  "  This  is  of  no  importance !  this  is  not  to 
the  question!  "  When  Hus,  seeing  that  the  assembly  had 
determined  to  prevent  his  being  heard,  ceased  speaking,  all 
cried  out  to  him:  "  Behold,  thou  art  silent,  thou  hast  admitted 
thy  errors!  "  l  Writing  to  Lord  John  of  Chlum  in  the  evening 
of  June  5,  Hus  says:  "  All  cried  out  at  me,  as  did  the  Jews 
against  Jesus."  Still  hoping  that  he  might  be  treated  more 
fairly  at  another  meeting,  he  writes  not  quite  hopelessly  at  the 
end  of  the  same  letter:  "  I  doubt  whether  they  will  allow  me 
to  quote  the  views  of  St.  Augustine  on  the  praedestinati  and 
praesciti,  or  on  evil  prelates."  The  proceedings  on  the  first 
day  of  Hus's  trial  were  so  scandalous  a  that  it  was  determined 
to  suspend  the  sitting  and  continue  the  trial  on  June  7. 

On  June  7,  the  second  day  of  the  trial,  a  total  eclipse  of 
the  sun  took  place.  It  was  particularly  noticed  by  the  pious 
citizens  of  Prague,  who  believed  that  it  foreshadowed  the 
doom  of  their  beloved  master.3  Darkness  also  covered  the 
city  of  Constance,  and  lights  had  to  be  lit  in  the  refectory 
when  the  trial  was  resumed.  A  large  body  of  Hungarian 
mercenaries  had  been  placed  in  the  refectory  by  Sigismund's 

1  This  account  is  abridged  from  the  narrative  of  Mladenovic,  who  was 
present  at  the  trial  of  Hus. 

1  The  proceedings  of  the  Council  of  Constance  were  often  very  turbulent 
— not  only  on  the  occasion  of  the  trial  of  Hus.  They  sometimes  resembled 
the  sittings  of  certain  modern  parliaments.  Thus  Pope  John  XXIII.,  when 
complaining  to  the  King  of  France  of  the  conduct  of  the  emperor,  accused 
Sigismund  of  having  sent  to  the  meetings  of  the  council  men  of  low  rank, 
who  interrupted  the  cardinals  and  prelates.  Then  "  sibilabatur  et  fiebat  eis 
(the  prelates)  tanta  injuria  quod  oportebat  ipsos  obmutescere  et  abire  confuse  " 
(Tosti,  History  of  the  Council  of  Constance). 

•Lawrence  of  Brezova  writes:  "Item  VII.  die  mensis  Junii,  qui  erat 
feria  VI.  post  Bonifacii  hora  XI.  ecclipsatus  est  totus  sol  ita  quod  non 
poterant  missae  sine  luminibus  celebrari  in  signum  quod  sol  Justiciae  Christus 
in  cordibus  praelatorum  multorum  ad  mortem  Magistri  Johannis  Hus  de 
proximo  per  concilium  mortificandi  anhelantium  fuit  obscuratus."  (Fontes 
rerum  Bohemicaritm,  v.  338.) 


248  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

order.     The  emperor  still  feared  or  feigned  to  fear  that  Hus 
would  escape  him.     Articles  of  accusation  against  Hus  were 
again  read  out,  and  the  first  subject  discussed  were  the  diffi- 
cult questions  connected  with  the  sacrament,  the  remanence 
of  bread,  and  transubstantiation.     Hus  seems  to  have  been 
allowed  a  somewhat  greater  liberty  of  speech  than  on  the  first 
day  of  the  trial.     It  was  stated  that  Hus  had  in  his  sermons 
in  the  Bethlehem  chapel  repeated  Wycliffe's  teaching  on  the 
question  of  transubstantiation.1     Cardinal  D'Ailly,  who  pre- 
sided, believed  that  it  would  be  easy  for  him,  who  was  famed 
as  one  of  the  most  brilliant  dialectitians  of  his  day,  to  confound 
Hus,  of  whose  intellectual  powers  he  appears  to  have  had  a 
mean  opinion.     To  him — and  the  opinion  has  been  revived  by 
some  modern  writers — Hus  appeared  as  a  man  of  little  educa- 
tion,  who  only  copied  and  repeated  Wycliffe's  views.     As 
already  mentioned,  recent  research  has  proved  that  Hus  was 
a  man  of  learning,  not  unversed  in  scholastic  controversy.     He 
certainly  proved  it  on  this  occasion.     When  Hus  stated  that 
he  believed  in  transubstantiation,  D'Ailly  asked  him  in  the 
terminology  of  scholasticism  whether  he  believed  in  "  uni- 
versal "  {universalia  a  parte  rei).     Hus  affirmed  that  he  did 
so,  and  the  cardinal  now  wished  to  force  him  to  draw  the 
consequence  that  if  "  universals  "  were  admitted  the  trans- 
formation of  the  substance  of  the  consecrated  bread  (transub- 
stantiatio)   could  not  be  maintained;    for  if  Hus  taught  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  he  would  have  to  admit  that 
together  with  the  cessation  of  the  individuality   {singulare) 
of  the   consecrated   bread,   its  universale  also  ended.     Hus, 
with  great  perspicacity,  refuted  the  insidious  arguments  of 
D'Ailly,  by  stating  that  he  considered  transubstantiation  as 
an  exceptional  case  in  which,  together  with   the   singulare, 
the  universale  also  ceased  to  exist;    in  all  other  cases  the 

1  Nothing  is  more  complicated,  and  indeed  contradictory,  than  Wycliffe's 
teaching  with  regard  to  transubstantiation  and  communion.  The  accusation 
was  intentionally  vague. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  249 

singulare  continued  to  exist  {in  cdiis  singularibus  sub- 
jectatur)}  Hus's  defence  was  undoubtedly  successful,  and 
he  heartily  expressed  his  joy  in  a  letter  written  on  that  evening. 
His  enemies,  however,  continued  their  attacks  with  undaunted 
energy.  No  matter  appeared  irrelevant  which  was  likely  to 
throw  suspicion  on  Hus.  His  former  English  antagonist, 
John  Stokes,  again  appeared  on  the  scene.  He  stated  that  he 
had  while  at  Prague  read  a  treatise  which  was  attributed  to 
Hus  and  which  contained  many  errors  concerning  the  sacra- 
ment. Nothing  was  known  of  this  treatise,  nor  indeed  whether 
it  existed.  Hus  was  able  firmly  and  truthfully  to  declare  that 
he  was  not  the  author  of  this  treatise.  These  attacks  by 
means  of  vague  accusations  and  insinuations  would  probably 
have  continued,  had  not  one  of  the  English  members  of  the 
council  exclaimed:  "  Why  are  these  irrelevant  matters  intro- 
duced, that  do  not  concern  the  faith  ?  He  (Hus)  thinks  rightly 
concerning  the  sacrament  of  the  altar,  as  we  have  heard." 

The  scholastic  duel  between  Hus  and  Cardinal  D'Ailly  was 
the  only  occasion  during  the  trial  in  which  the  conflict  be- 
tween nominalists  and  realists  came  to  the  fore.  The  absolute 
recklessness  with  which  it  was  attempted  to  attribute  to  Hus 
ideas  and  statements  which  were  quite  alien  to  him  prove  the 
animosity  of  the  nominalists  against  him.  It  was  stated  that 
Hus  had  saidrr<  that  there  were  more  than  three  persons  in  the 
trinity  {sic)  and  that  one  of  them  was  John  Hus."  One  of 
the  nominalist  writers  formally  brought  this  accusation  against 
Hus.2  The  nominalism  of  writers  of  this  school  led  to  prac- 
tical, though  prudently  veiled,  scepticism,  which  considered  it 
possible  to  maintain  every  conceivable  thesis  with  an  appear- 

1  Mladenovic,  pp.  276-285.  See  also  Hus's  letter  written  on  June  7 
(Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  106-108).  Tschackert,  Peter  von  Ailly  (pp.  226-230) 
gives  a  short,  very  lucid  account  of  the  scholastic  discussion  between  Hus 
and  D'Ailly. 

1 "  Hus  concessit  istam  (thesin)  quod  Johannes  Hus  esset  persona  in 
divinis  et  quod  plures  essent  personae  in  divinis  quam  tres."  (Mansi,  xxvii. 
p.  758.)  This  matter  was  formally  brought  before  the  council  at  its  meeting 
on  July  6. 


250  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

ance  of  truth.  As  no  accusations  against  Hus  could  be 
truthfully  proved,  D'Ailly,  cleverly  availing  himself  of  the 
statements  of  the  informers,  Palec  and  Michael,  attacked  Hus 
with  the  sophistry  of  the  nominalist  school. 

It  is,  however,  easy  to  exaggerate  the  influence  of  the  well- 
worn  controversy  between  nominalists  and  realists  on  the  fate 
of  Hus.     Hus  used  scholastic  dialectics  as  a  skilful  fencer  uses 

-  his  sword,  to  parry  the  attacks  of  an  implacable  enemy.  His 
heart  was  elsewhere,  and  this  his  enemies  well  knew.  An 
opulent  and  immoral  clergy  and  a  vicious  and  ambitious 
emperor  were  equally  determined  to  bring  to  the  stake  the 
humble  priest  who  had  dared  to  praise  poverty,  virtue,  and 
self-sacrifice. 

After  this  controversy  the  judges  began  to  summon  further 
witnesses.  They  were  mainly  Bohemians  whom,  as  has 
already  been  mentioned,  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl  and  his  allies 
had  brought  from  their  country  to  bear  witness  against  Hus. 
Many  had  come  to  Constance  unwillingly,  probably  on  receipt 
of  a  considerable  bribe,  and  hardly  knew  what  they  were 
expected  to  testify.  The  principal  purpose  of  these  deposi- 
tions was  to  prove  the  entire  dependence  of  Hus  on  Wycliffe. 
As  the  writings  of  the  English  divine  had  some  time  previously 
been  declared  to  be  heretical,  the  identification  of  Hus  with 
Wycliffe  necessarily  involved  the  condemnation  of  Hus.  The 
latter  indeed  endeavoured  to  define  the  difference  between  his 
own  views  and  those  of  Wycliffe  on  several  subjects,  but  was 
now  again  interrupted  by  loud  cries.  He  was,  however,  able 
to  declare  in  words  that  I  have  already  quoted,  that  he  did 
not  wish  to  preach  or  follow  the  erroneous  teaching  of  Wycliffe 
or  of  any  one  else,  that  Wycliffe  was  not  his  father  or  indeed 
a  Bohemian,  and  that  if  he  had  disseminated  errors,  it  was 

I  the  duty  of  the  English  to  see  to  this.     When  the  article 

:  referring  to  Hus's  appeal  to  Jesus  Christ  was  read  out,  it  was 
received  by  the  assembly  with  loud  laughter  and  derision. 

■On  the  whole,  eight  articles  were  read  out  on  this  day.     Many 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  251 

contained  distorted  versions  of  remarks  that  Hus  had  made, 
often  many  years  previously,  when  conversing  with  his  friends 
at  Prague.  Words  of  praise  of  Wycliffe  spoken  by  Hus  were 
interpreted  as  implying  his  complete  acceptation  of  all  the 
tenets  of  the  English  divine.  The  trial  or  rather  the  reading 
out  of  the  articles  of  accusation  against  Hus  was  then  sus- 
pended, and  it  was  decided  that  the  proceedings  should  continue 
on  the  following  day. 

At  the  end  of  the  sitting  an  incident  occurred  which  proves 
both  D'Ailly's  great  animosity  against  Hus,  and  the  fear  which 
he  and  the  other  opulent  prelates  entertained  that  Hus  might 
yet  escape  unless  it  were  possible  to  render  him  obnoxious  to 
the  temporal  powers.  Before  the  assembly  separated,  the 
Cardinal  of  Cambray  made  the  following  statement: a  "  When 
I  was  riding  from  Rome  (to  Constance),  some  prelates  from 
Bohemia  met  me  on  the  road,  and  when  I  asked  them  what 
news  they  had  they  answered:  '  Most  reverend  father,  we 
bring  evil  news ;  all  the  clergy  is  being  despoiled  of  its  prebends 
and  possessions.'  "  Then,  addressing  Hus,  the  Cardinal  of 
Cambray  continued:  "  Magister  John,  when  thou  wert  brought 
into  the  palace  (of  the  bishop)  and  we  asked  thee  how  thou 
hadst  come  here,  thou  didst  say  that  thou  hadst  come  here  of 
thy  free  will  and  that  if  thou  hadst  not  wished  to  come,  neither 
the  King  of  Bohemia,  nor  the  lord  King  of  the  Romans  could 
have  forced  thee  to  come."  The  master  answered:  "  Yes,  I 
said  that  I  had  come  here  of  my  free  will,  and  that  if  I  had  not 
wished  to  come,  there  were  so  many  and  so  great  lords  in  the 
kingdom  of  Bohemia,  who  love  me  and  to  whose  castles  I  could 
have  retired  concealing  myself  there,  that  neither  that  king 
nor  this  one  could  have  forced  me  to  come."  The  cardinal 
shook  his  head,  and,  his  face  somewhat  altered  by  indignation, 
said:  "  See,  what  audacity."  Then  while  the  others  mur- 
mured, Lord  John  of  Chlum  said:  "He  speaks  the  truth; 
what  he  says  is  true.     I  am  but  a  poor  knight  in  our  kingdom, 

1  Mladenovic,  Relatio  de  M.  J.  Hus  causa. 


252  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

but  I  would  keep  him  for  a  year,  so  that  he  could  not  be  seized. 
Also  are  there  many  and  great  lords  who  love  him,  and  who 
have  strongholds  in  which  they  could  protect  him  against  both 
kings."  It  is  needless  to  point  out  that  these  remarks  both  on 
the  part  of  Hus  and  of  Lord  John  were  most  injudicious. 
They  had  said  exactly  what  the  astute  cardinal  had  wished 

;  them  to  say.     Sigismund,  whose  vanity  was  inordinate,  wished 

)  to  appear  at  Constance  as  an  absolute  emperor,  and  nothing 
could  wound  him  more  severely  than  this  revelation  of  the 

,  weakness  of  the  Luxemburg  dynasty  in  Bohemia.  Though 
D'Ailly  was  perhaps  not  aware  of  this,  Sigismund  was  from 
the  first  determined  to  silence  Hus  permanently.  His  bitter- 
ness against  the  Bohemian  church-reformer,  however,  no  doubt 
now  became  greater.  His  parting  words  to  Hus  on  leaving 
the  refectory  were  therefore  most  ungracious.  He  strongly 
advised  Hus  to  recant,  declaring  that  he  would  grant  no  pro- 
tection to  a  heretic;  rather  would  he  be  the  one  to  fire  the 
stake  to  burn  such  an  offender. 

The  third  day  of  the  trial,  ultima  audientia  dicta,  veriusque 

I  derisio,1  as  Mladenovic  writes,  was  the  eighth  of  June.  An 
/  enormous  mass  of  evidence  against  Hus  had  been  collected  by 
Michael  de  causis  and  Stephen  Palec,  and  a  huge  number  of 
articles  had  to  be  read  out.  Twenty-six  articles  extracted 
from  Hus's  treatise  De  Ecclesia  were  first  read  to  the  assembly. 
They  had  previously  been  shown  to  Hus,  and  his  replies  had 
also  been  noted  down.  It  was  not  difficult  for  the  accusers 
to  prove  that  Hus  had  spoken  and  written  strongly  against 
the  administration  and  organisation  of  the  Roman  Church- 
such  as  they  were  in  his  day.  This  evil  administration  he  had 
declared  to  be  responsible  for  the  terrible  prevalence  of  simony 
and  immorality  among  the  clergy — a  fact  which  even  the  most 
ardent  opponent  of  church-reform  could  not  deny.  It  was 
less  easy  to  convict  Hus  of  heretical  statements  with  regard  to 

1  Mr.  Wratislaw  has  well  translated  this  by  "  the  last  so-called  hearing, 
or  rather  jeering." 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  253 

matters  of  dogma,  though  the  accusers  were  by  no  means 
scrupulous  in  their  system  of  attack.  Many  statements  con- 
tained in  Hus's  book  had  been  altered  and  distorted  to  make 
them  appear  more  invidious.1  The  one  point  with  regard  to 
which  the  accusers  of  Hus  had  some  foundation  for  their  state- 
ment, that  his  teaching  differed  from  that  of  the  Roman 
Church,  was  the  difficult  and  obscure  question  of  predestina- 
tion. Hus,  indeed,  maintained  that  his  opinions  were  in 
accordance  with  those  of  St.  Augustine,  but  the  school  of 
theologians  which  exercised  most  influence  at  the  council  was 
secretly,  though  not  openly,  antagonistic  to  many  views 
of  that  saint.  In  Article  19  it  was  stated  that  Hus  had 
said  that  "  the  nobles  of  the  world  should  compel  the  priest- 
hood to  observe  Christ's  law."  This  was  on  the  whole  in 
accordance  with  Hus's  views,  but  he  pointed  out  that  he  had 
stated  that  the  church  militant  consisted  of  the  priests,  who 
should  preserve  the  law  purely,  the  nobles  of  the  world,  who 
should  compel  them  to  observe  Christ's  regulations,  and  the 
vulgar,  who  must,  according  to  Christ's  law,  serve  the  other 
ranks.  It  did  not  escape  D'Ailly,  the  most  acute  as  well 
as  the  most  learned  of  Hus's  antagonists,  that  these  views 
were  likely  to  gain  for  Hus  numerous  adherents  among  the 
sovereigns  and  nobles,  many  of  whom  disapproved  of  the 
extreme  opulence  and  power  of  the  priesthood.  D'Ailly 
determined  again  to  denounce  Hus  as  an  enemy  of  the 
temporal  authorities  and,  as  will  be  seen  almost  immediately, 
succeeded  in  doing  so.  Article  21  again  referred  to  Hus's 
appeal  to  Christ,  a  matter  that  evidently  rankled  in  the 
minds  of  his  opponents.  The  mention  was  again  received 
with  cries  of  derision. 

1  It  would  lead  too  far  to  go  into  this  matter.  It  may,  however,  to  give 
but  one  example,  be  mentioned  that  Article  16  accused  Hus  of  having 
declared  that  "  Papa  non  quia  Petri  vicem  tenet,  sed  quia  magnam  habet 
dotationem,  ex  eo  est  sanctissimus."  Hus's  reply  ran  thus:  "  Verba  mea 
hie  mutilita  sunt  et  corrupta.  Sic  enim  scripsi:  Non  enim  quia  vices  tenet 
Petri  et  quia  habet  magnam  dotationem  ex  eo  est  sanctissimus,  sed  si  Christum 
sequitur  in  humilitate,  mansuetudine,  patientia,  labore  et  magno  charitatis 
vinculo,  tunc  est  sanctus."      (Von  der  Hardt,  T.  iv.  p.  317.) 


254  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

When  the  reading  of  the  first  series  of  articles  had  ended, 
the  Cardinal  of  Cambray  remarked  that  yet  more  heretical 
statements  could  have  been  found  in  the  treatise  De  Ecclesia. 
The  next  articles,  seven  in  number,  referred  to  statements 
contained  in  Hus's  treatise  entitled  Responsio  ad  scripta  Mag. 
Stephani  Pake.  The  extracts,  made,  no  doubt,  by  Palec  him- 
self, were  in  many  cases  falsified  and  distorted.  Mladenovic, 
indeed,  heads  his  account  of  these  articles  by  the  words: 
"  Articles  extracted  from  the  treatise  against  Master  Stephen 
Palec  (but  rarely  faithfully)." x  The  accusations  are  very 
similar  to  the  preceding  ones,  and  indeed  to  all  the  accusations 
made  against  Hus  at  the  council.  It  was  repeated  that  he 
had  attacked  the  authority  of  the  pope  and  the  church,  that 
he  had  taught  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  that  he  had 
stated  that  unworthy  priests  could  not  validly  administer  the 
sacrament.  As  regards  the  last-named  point,  it  is  sufficient 
to  state  that  Hus  had  frequently,  both  by  word  and  in  writing, 
expressed  the  contrary  view.  The  first  of  these  articles  gave 
rise  to  a  somewhat  prolonged  discussion.  The  article  accused 
Hus  of  having  stated  that  "  if  the  pope,  a  bishop,  or  a  prelate 
was  in  the  state  of  mortal  sin,  he  was  not  pope,  bishop,  or 
prelate."  Hus's  answer  was  certainly  imprudent  and  devoid 
of  worldly  wisdom.  He  said:  '  Yes,  and  he  who  is  in  the 
state  of  mortal  sin  cannot  either  rightly  be  a  king  before  God, 
as  is  shown  by  the  Book  of  Kings,  chap.  iv.  v.  16,  where  God, 
through  Samuel,  said  to  Saul:  'As  thou  hast  rejected  my 
word,  I  reject  thee  from  being  king.'  " 2  This  statement  did  not 
remain  unnoticed  by  the  enemies  of  Hus.  Von  der  Hardt  and 
Mladenovic  give  almost  identical  accounts  of  the  discussion 
that  now  ensued.  Sigismund  was  looking  out  of  a  window  of 
the  refectory,  having  as  his  companions  the  Count  Palatine 

1  "  Articuli  extracti  ex  tractatu  facto  contra  M.  Stephanum  Palec  (sed 
rarus  (sic)  vere)." 

*  The  passage  referred  to,  though  not  quoted  verbally  by  Hus,  is  really  in 
the  book  of  i  Samuel,  chap.  xiv.  v.  26.  Hus  was  not  allowed  the  use  of  a 
Bible  in  prison,  and  though  he  was  exceptionally  well-read  in  Scripture,  we 
sometimes  meet  with  little  mistakes. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  255 

and  the  Burgrave  of  Nuremberg.  They  talked  much  of  John1 
Hus,  and  the  king  finally  said  that  there  never  was  a  more 
pernicious  heretic.  But  when  the  prelates  heard  the  words 
which  Hus  had  spoken  they  all  exclaimed,  "  Call  the  king  "; 
but  the  king,  who  was  talking  about  Hus  near  the  window,  did 
not  hear  them.  Then  those  who  presided  called  to  the  men 
who  were  nearer  the  king  saying,  "  Bring  him  (the  king)  here 
that  he  may  hear  what  concerns  him.  Then  when  the 
emperor  1  had  been  called,  John  was  ordered  to  repeat  what 
he  had  said  about  unworthy  kings.  When  he  had  done  so 
the  emperor  said,  "  John  Hus,  no  one  lives  without  sinning." 
Then  the  Cardinal  of  Cambray,  greatly  irritated,  said:  "Is  it] 
then  not  enough  that,  despising  the  ecclesiastical  state,  thou 
endeavourest  to  degrade  it  by  thy  writings  and  thy  tenets? 
Now  thou  attemptest  also  to  eject  the  kings  from  their  state!  " 
Palec  then  began  to  quote  some  laws  by  means  of  which  he 
wished  to  prove  that  Saul  was  a  king  even  after  he  had  heard 
these  words  of  Samuel,  and  that  David  had  therefore  forbidden 
that  he  should  be  slain,  not  because  of  holiness  of  life,  which 
he  possessed  not,  but  because  of  the  sanctity  of  his  anoint- 
ment. Then  when  Hus  quoted  the  words  of  St.  Cyprian,  who 
said:  "Vainly  does  he  claim  to  belong  to  Christianity  who 
nowise  imitates  Christ  in  his  conduct,"  Palec  answered:  "  See 
what  foolishness!  in  what  way  is  it  to  the  purpose  to  allege 
that  because  a  man  is  not  a  true  Christian  he  is  therefore  not 
a  true  pope,  or  bishop,  or  king?  For  the  learned  know  that 
(the  words)  pope,  bishop,  king,  signify  an  office,  but  Christian 
a  merit.  Thus  it  is  clear  that  a  man  may  be  a  true  pope, 
bishop,  or  king  though  he  is  not  a  true  Christian."  The 
seventh  article  accused  Hus  of  having  stated  that  the  con- 
demnation of  articles  derived  from  Wycliffe's  writings  had 
been  irrational  and  unjust.  Cardinal  D'Ailly  said:  "  John 
Hus,  you  said  that  you  would  not  defend  any  error  of  Wycliffe. 

1  The  contemporary  writers  on  the  Council  of  Constance  call  Sigismund 
indiscriminately  emperor,  king.  King  of  the  Romans,  King  of  Hungary. 


256  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Yet  it  appears  from  your  writings  that  you  have  publicly 
defended  his  articles."  Hus  answered:  "  I  say  the  same 
thing  which  I  said  before;  that  I  do  not  wish  to  defend  the 
errors  of  Wycliffe,  or  of  any  one  else.  But  it  appeared  to  me 
contrary  to  my  conscience  simply  to  approve  of  the  con- 
demnation of  the  articles  while  no  exposition  of  the  arguments 
of  the  other  side  had  taken  place.  Therefore  did  I  not  approve 
of  the  condemnation  of  the  articles."  It  deserves  notice  that 
on  this  important  question,  which  was  frequently  raised  before 
and  during  the  trial,  Hus  remained  perfectly  consistent,  and 
indeed  expressed  his  point  of  view  almost  in  the  same  words. 

Finally,  six  articles  extracted  from  Hus's  work,  Responsio 
ad  Scripta  M.  Stanislai  de  Znoymo,  were  read  out.  They 
covered  the  same  ground  as  the  former  accusations.  It  was 
only  at  the  sitting  of  the  council  on  the  day  of  the  execution 
of  Hus  that  the  accusation  of  having  declared  that  he  was  a 
fourth  person  of  the  divinity  was  formally  raised  against  him. 
The  members  of  the  council,  who  knew  that  Hus's  condemna- 
tion was  a  foregone  conclusion,  listened  to  the  lengthy  pro- 
ceedings with  increasing  impatience.  Laughter  and  derisive 
remarks  on  Hus  became  more  and  more  frequent.1 

When  all  the  articles  containing  the  accusations  against 
Hus  had  been  read  out,  Cardinal  D'Ailly  said,  addressing  Hus: 
'  Thou  hast  heard  how  great  is  the  heinousness  of  the  accusa- 
tions that  have  been  brought  against  thee.  It  is  thy  duty  to 
reflect  now  on  what  thou  wilt  do."  The  cardinal  then  pointed 
out  that  two  ways  were  open  to  him.  He  must  submit  him- 
self humbly  to  the  judgment  and  sentence  of  the  council, 
which,  in  consideration  of  Sigismund  and  his  brother  the  King 
of  Bohemia,  would  treat  him  leniently.  This  no  doubt  re- 
ferred to  the  plan  of  confining  Hus  for  life  in  a  distant  monas- 
tery.    Should  he,  however,  not  consent  to  this  submission, 

1  In  Von  der  Hardt's  full  account  of  the  proceedings  we  meet  constantly 
-^particularly  towards  the  end — with  notes  such  as:  "  Et  cum  hoc  diceret, 
deridebatur,"  "  Hie  dixerunt  " — the  members  of  the  council — "  Ecce  jam 
prophetizat,"  etc. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  257 

and  still  wish  to  defend  some  of  his  tenets,  then  a  hearing 
would  not  be  refused  to  him,  but  he  "would  Tact  thus  at  his 
greatest  peril.  Hus  replied:  "  I  do  not  wish  to  maintain  any 
errors,  but  will  humbly  submit  to  the  decrees  of  the  council; 
but  I  cannot,  not  to  offend  God  and  my  conscience,  say  that  I 
held  erroneous  opinions,  which  I  never  held,  and  which  I  never 
had  at  heart.  I  beg  only  that  hearing  may  be  granted  me 
that  I  may  express  my  views  regarding  the  accusations  that 
have  been  made  against  me."  Hus  then  enumerated  several 
important  points  on  which  he  had  either  not  been  allowed  to 
speak  at  all,  or  had  been  interrupted  when  attempting  to  do 
so.  We  here  again  meet  with  the  same  contradictory  views 
concerning  the  purpose  of  the  council  that  are  evident  from 
the  time  of  Hus's  arrival  at  Constance  to  the  moment  of  his 
death.  Hus  believed  that  he  would  be  allowed  freely  to  ex- 
pound and  defend  his  opinions,  while  the  members  of  the 
council  considered  that  he  had  been  summoned  to  Constance  to 
recant  whatever  heretical  views  had  been  rightly  or  wrongly 
ascribed  to  him,  and  then  to  submit  to  whatever  punishment 
should  be  awarded  to  him.  Hus's  reply,  which  did  not  ex- 
press immediate  and  unconditional  surrender,  was  received 
with  general  indignation,  and  loud  cries  summoned  him  to 
submit.  D'Ailly,  and  afterwards  the  Cardinal  of  Florence 
(Zabarella),  continued  to  reason  with  Hus,  urging  him  to 
follow  the  advice  of  the  council.  Sigismund  also  strongly/ 
advised  him  to  recant  heretical  views,  even  if  he  had  never 
held  them.  This,  of  course,  appeared  the  greatest  of  sins  to 
a  pious  and  straightforward  priest,  such  as  was  Hus.  He, 
who  firmly  believed  that  nothing  he  had  said  or  written  was! 
contrary  to  God's  word  could  never  consent  to  appear  as  a 
professed  heretic  to  his  countrymen,  who  had  so  warmly 
welcomed  his  teaching.  Hus's  answer  to  Sigismund  was  almost  * 
identical  with  that  which  he  had  given  to  the  Cardinal  of 
Cambray.  The  indignation  of  the  members  of  the  council 
became    yet    greater.     "  An    old    bald-headed    bishop    from 


258  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Poland  "  x  declared  that  canon  law  precisely  indicated  the 
treatment  that  should  be  meted  out  to  heretics,  and  a  "fat 
priest  sitting  at  the  window  in  precious  robes,  who  appeared 
to  be  a  Prussian,"  2  exclaimed  with  a  loud  voice:  "  Let  him 
not  be  allowed  to  recant,  for  even  if  he  recants,  he  will  not 
keep  to  it."  3  Hus,  however,  did  not  recant,  nor  was  it  in 
consideration  of  his  reiterated  and  consistent  statements 
possible  for  him  to  do  so.  Palec,  wishing  to  envenom  the 
already  prevalent  animosity  against  Hus,  now  began  to  anim- 
advert on  his  attitude  on  the  occasion  of  the  execution  of  the 
three  young  men  who  had  taken  part  in  the  demonstrations 
against  the  misuse  of  indulgences.4  No  promise  was  made  '.to 
Hus  assuring  him  that  he  would  be  allowed  freely  to  expound 
his  views,  and  he  was  reconducted  to  prison  by  the  Bishop  of 
Riga,  in  whose  custody  he  had  been  ever  since  his  return  from 
Gottlieben  to  Constance.  On  leaving  the  hall  Hus  met  John 
of  Chlum,  one  of  the  Bohemian  noblemen  who  were  then  at 
Constance.  Chlum  gave  him  his  hand  and  endeavoured  to 
comfort  him.  Hus,  as  Mladenovic  tells  us,  was  deeply  touched 
that  he  did  not  disdain  to  salute  him  who  was  rejected  by 
almost  all  and  spurned  as  a  heretic,  and  to  give  him  his  hand. 
At  the  end  of  the  sitting  an  incident  occurred  that  deserves 
to  be  told  in  the  words  of  Mladenovic,  who  was  present.  He 
writes:  "  After  his  (Hus's)  departure,  all  who  were  present, 
prelates  and  cardinals,  wished  to  leave  and  had  already  risen. 
Then  the  soldiers  who  were  on  guard  in  the  background  also 
retired,  and  our  men  (i.e.,  the  friends  of  Hus)  went  near  the 
window,  and  Lord  John  of  Chlum,  Lord  Venceslas  of  Lestna 
and  P.5  the  bachelor  of  arts,  still  remained  within.  These 
men  the  king,  it  appears,  did  not  notice,  but   thought  that 

1  Mladenovic.  a  Ibid. 

8  This  refers  to  the  untruthful  accusation  already  mentioned,  according  to 
which  Hus  had  written  that  should  he  recant  at  Constance,  his  recantation 
was  to  be  considered  as  obtained  by  force,  and  therefore  invalid. 

*See  p.  157. 

5  i.e.,  Peter  of  Mladenovic,  the  writer. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HITS  259 

they  had  retired  when  the  master  was  conducted  back  to 
prison.      Then  the  king  said:    '  Reverend  fathers,  you  have 
already  heard  the  many  things  that  are  in  his  (Hus's)  books, 
those  which  he  has  confessed,  those  which  have  been  suffi- 
ciently proved  against  him ;   each  single  one  of  those  would  be 
sufficient  to  condemn  him.     Therefore,  if  he  will  not  recant 
these  errors,  and  abjure  them  and  declare  himself  opposed  to 
them,  let  him  be  burnt,  or  you  will  yourselves  deal  with  him 
according  to  your   (canon)   law,   as  you  know.     And  be  it 
known  to  you  that  even  if  he  promises  to  recant,  and  even  if 
he  does  so,  you  must  not  believe  him,  neither  will  I,  for  if  he 
returned  to  the  kingdom  (of  Bohemia)  and  to  his  furtherers, 
he  would  spread  these  and  other  errors,  and  a  new  heresy 
would  arise,  worse  than  the  former  one.     You  must  therefore 
entirely  forbid  him  to  preach,  and  prevent  his  returning  to  his 
friends,  that  he  may  not  spread  any  further  heresies.     And 
his  articles  that  have  been  condemned  here,  you  must  send  to 
my  brother  in  the  Bohemian  land,  and — oh,  the  sorrow! — 
also  to  Poland,  and  other  lands  where  he  has  secret  disciples, 
and  many  furtherers;    and  wheresoever  men  are  found  who 
hold  such  views,  let  the  bishops  and  prelates  punish  them, 
that  the  branches  be  torn  out  together  with  the  root;   and  let 
the  council  write  to  the  kings  and  princes  begging  them  to 
favour  among  their  prelates  most  those  who  have  at  this  holy 
council  worked  most  strenuously  at  the  destruction  of  heresy. 
Know  also  that  it  is  written  that  every  word  (sentence)  de- 
pends on  two  or  three  witnesses,  but  here  the  hundredth  part 
would  suffice  to  condemn  him.     And  you  must  also  quickly 
make  an  end  of  his  secret  friends  and  furtherers,  for  I  shall  be 
leaving  shortly,  and  specially  (must  you  make  an  end  of)  this 
one,  this  one,' x  then  resuming  his  speech,  '  this  one  who  is 
detained  here.'     They  then  said,  '  Jerome.'     And  he:    '  Yes, 
Jerome.'     '  We  shall  make  an  end  with  this  man  in  less  than 

1  Mladenovic  represents  Sigismund  as  hesitating  in  his  speech — perhaps 
not  remembering  the  name  of  Jerome. 


260  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

a  day  (the  prelates  said) ;  it  will  be  easier,  for  this  one,'  allud- 
ing to  Hus,  '  is  the  master,  and  this  Jerome  is  his  disciple.' 
Then  again  the  king  (said) :  '  Assuredly,  I  was  still  young 
when  this  sect  arose  and  began  in  Bohemia;  and  behold  how 
greatly  it  has  grown  and  multiplied  since!  '*  After  these 
words  they  all  joyfully  left  the  refectory." 

No  conjectures,  however  sagacious,  concerning  Sigismund's 
intentions  with  regard  to  Hus  can  show  them  more  clearly 
than  Sigismund's  own  words  do  here.  As  Dr.  Flajshans  very 
truly  writes:  '  These  few  words,  spoken  in  an  unguarded 
moment,  cost  Sigismund  the  Bohemian  crown." 

After  the  ending  of  the  third  day  of  Hus's  trial,  it  was 
obvious  to  all  that  his  condemnation  and  execution  would 
take  place  in  a  few  days.  No  one  was  so  thoroughly  aware  of 
this  as  Hus  himself,  and  his  parting  letters  to  his  friends, 
which  will  be  mentioned  presently,  are  among  the  most 
precious  of  those  that  have  been  preserved. 

If  some  delay  yet  occurred  before  his  execution,  it  was 
because  some  still  hoped  that  it  might  be  possible  to  induce 
Hus  to  recant.  His  French  enemies  indeed,  such  as  Gerson 
and  D'Ailly,  probably  preferred  that  the  Bohemian  church- 
reformer  should  be  publicly  burnt  at  the  stake,  but  Sigismund, 
who  kept  his  own  intentions  on  the  Bohemian  throne  in 
view,  hesitated.  Strong  remonstrances,  couched  in  ever  more 
energetic  language — of  which  I  have  here  only  been  able  to 
mention  a  few — continued  to  reach  him  from  Bohemia  and 
Moravia.  Though  he  may  still  have  thought  that  the  death 
or  disappearance  of  Hus  would  break  the  strength  of  the 
Hussite  movement,  he  necessarily  perceived  that  the  public 
martyrdom  of  the  hero  of  the  nation  might  very  possibly 
cause  a  revolutionary  outbreak.  It  was,  on  the  other  hand, 
certain  that,  should  Hus  recant  in  any  form,  he  would  entirely 
lose  his  prestige  with  the  Bohemian  people.     If  after  such  a 

1  These  words  refer  to  the  movement  in  favour  of  church-reform  that 
arose  in  Bohemia.  Some  writers  incorrectly  see  in  them  an  allusion  to 
Wycliffe  and  the  Lollard  troubles  in  England. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  261 

recantation  Hus  were  quietly  removed  to  a  secluded  monastery 
in  distant  Sweden,  Sigismund's  plans  on  Bohemia  would  be 
greatly  furthered.  The  council  so  deeply  indebted  to  him 
would  be  quite  willing  to  bring  against  King  Venceslas  and 
Queen  Sophia  the  accusations  of  heresy  that  were  already 
being  prepared. 

It  would  not,  however,  be  fair  to  suggest  that  all  the 
members  of  the  council  were  devoid  of  pity  for  the  pious  and 
God-loving  Bohemian  priest.  Among  those  who  secretly  felt 
sympathy  for  Hus  was  a  prominent  prelate  whose  name  is  not) 
known  to  us.  Von  der  Hardt's  statement,1  that  Hus's  secret 
friend  was  John  of  Brogni,  cardinal-bishop  of  Ostia,  is  almost 
certainly  incorrect.  This  prelate,  whom  Hus  merely  describes 
as  "  pater,"  entered  into  correspondence  with  him.  The  kind- 
hearted  priest  strongly  endeavoured  to  persuade  Hus  to  re- 
nounce the  opinions  which  had  been  condemned — not  only 
those  he  had  actually  expressed,  but  also  those  that  had  been 
wrongly  ascribed  to  him.  Among  other  arguments,  the 
"  father  "  impressed  on  Hus  that  it  was  not  he  personally,  but 
his  superiors  and  the  entire  council  which  would  bear  the 
responsibility  should  he  abandon  the  opinions  which  he  had 
formerly  held.2  As  Dr.  Lechler  has  well  pointed  out,  the  ] 
question  whether  Hus  should  yield  to  the  authority  of  others, 
or  rely  on  his  own  conscience,  was  the  all-important  one. 
"  Hus  had,"  Dr.  Lechler3  writes,  "  either  to  subject  his  own 
conscience  to  that  of  others,  to  that  of  very  weighty  men  cer- 
tainly as  they  included  the  members  of  a  great  council  of  the 
church,   or   to   follow  resolutely   and   fearlessly   the  dictates 

1  The  form  of  recantation  submitted  to  Hus  is  thus  described:  "  Revoca- 
tionis  forma  a  Johanne  Ostiensi,  cardinali  Vivariensi  vice-cancellario  Husso 
proposita."     (Von  der  Hardt,  iv.  329.) 

2"  Non  moveat  vos  istud,  quod  condemnetis  veritates  quia  non  vos,  sed 
ipsi  damnant,  qui  sunt  majores  vestri,  et  etiam  nostri  de  praesenti.  Attendite 
hocverbum:  ne  innitaris  prudentiae  tuae;  multi  scientilici  et  conscienciosi 
viri  sunt  in  concilio;  fili  mi  audi  legem  motris,"  ("  Pater,"  M.  Joanni  Hus, 
Palacky,  Documenta). 

*  Dr.  Lechler,  Johann  von  Wiclif,  vol.  ii.  p.  217.  Dr.  Lechler  writes  from 
the  point  of  view  of  a  Protestant  divine. 


\, 


262  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

of  his  own  conscience.  The  same  question  confronted  him 
which  afterwards  confronted  Luther  when  he  appeared  before 
Cajetan,  at  Augsburg,  and  again  when  he  appeared  before  the 
emperor  and  the  imperial  diet.  The  same  question  again 
arose  before  the  Protestant  estates  of  Germany,  when  they  ap- 
peared at  Spires  in  1529,  and  more  recently  before  the  bishops, 
priests,  and  members  of  the  Roman  Church,  when  the  dogma 
of  the  infallible  ministry  of  the  pope  was  introduced. 
Herein,"  Dr.  Lechler  continues,  "  lies  the  greatness  of  Hus, 
I  that,  in  spite  of  his  humility  and  childlike  nature,  in  spite  of 
his  great  self -distrust,  he  did  not  allow  himself  to  be  intimi- 
dated by  the  unanimous  opinion  of  a  great'council  representing 
so  large  a  part  of  the  learning,  intellectual  power,  and  eccle- 
siastical authority  of  the  time,  that  he  preferred  to  bear  the 
shame  of  being  considered  an  obstinate  heretic,  and  even  to 
suffer  the  pangs  of  death  at  the  stake,  rather  than  consent  to 
a  recantation  which  he  knew  to  be  a  falsehood." 

Hus  therefore  declined,  though  in  a  courteous  and  grateful 
fashion,  the  suggestions  of  the  kind  "  father."  His  letters  in 
these,  the  last  weeks  of  his  life,  are  numerous  and  very  precious. 
Now  certain  that  his  end  is  very  near,  he  takes  leave  of  his 
friends  and  gives  his  last  advice  and  consolation  to  his  dis- 
ciples.1 These  letters  clearly  portray  his  thoughts  and  feelings 
in  the  time  that  immediately  preceded  his  martyrdom.  It  is 
therefore  of  interest  to  transcribe  some  parts  of  these  letters. 
In  one  of  the  earliest  of  these  letters  addressed  "  to  his 
Bohemian  friends,"  Hus  refers  somewhat  bitterly  to  the 
conduct  of  Sigismund.  The  letter  is  therefore  important,  as 
Sigismund's  part  in  the  condemnation  of  Hus  has  often  been 
misrepresented  and  misunderstood.  Hus  writes:  "  As 
regards  Peter,2  I  am  pleased.     I  do  not  keep  his  letters,  but 

1  These  letters,  written  some  in  Bohemian,  some  in  Latin,  have  been 
frequently  translated  into  English,  the  Bohemian  ones  from  German  or  Latin 
translations.  I  have  previously  translated  fragments  of  them  in  my 
Bohemia,  a  Historical  Sketch,  and  A  History  of  Bohemian  Literature. 

1  i.e.,  Mladenovic. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  263 

destroy  them.  Do  not  let  them  send  me  sheets  containing  six 
pages  of  paper,1  for  I  fear  they  may  cause  trouble  to  the 
messenger  and  others.  I  also  pray  in  the  name  of  God  that 
all  the  lords  should  entreat  the  king  to  allow  me  to  be  heard 
once  more,  that  I  may  answer  the  accusations,  as  indeed  the 
king  promised  at  the  last  meeting  of  the  council.  It  will  be 
greatly  to  his  shame  if  he  overlooks  this  promise.  But  I 
presume  that  his  word  is  as  trustworthy  as  it  was  with  regard 
to  the  safe-conduct,  and  in  Bohemia  they  already  told  me  to 
beware  of  his  safe-conduct.  Others  said:  '  He  himself  will 
deliver  you  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies.'  Lord  Mikes 
Divoky 2  said  to  me  in  the  presence  of  Magister  Jesenic: 
'  Magister,  know  for  certain  that  you  will  be  condemned.'  He, 
I  think,  knew  the  king's  intentions.  I  thought  that  the  king 
(Sigismund)  understood  God's  law  and  the  truth,  but  I  find  he 
understands  them  very  little.  He  condemned  me  before  my 
enemies  did.  Had  he  but  followed  the  example  of  the  heathen 
Pilate,  who,  having  heard  the  accusations,  said:  '  I  have 
found  no  fault  in  this  man,'  or  had  he  but  said:  '  Behold,  I 
have  given  this  man  a  safe-conduct.  If  he  will  not  submit  to 
the  decision  of  the  council,  I  will  send  him  back  to  the  King  of 
Bohemia  with  your  (the  council's)  decision  and  evidence,  that 
he  (the  King  of  Bohemia)  and  his  clergy  may  pronounce  judg- 
ment on  him ;  '  for  he  (Sigismund)  let  me  know  through  Henry 
Lefl  and  others  that  he  would  grant  me  sufficient  hearing,  and, 
if  I  did  not  submit  to  the  sentence,  send  me  safely  back." 

On  June  10 — two  days  after  the  second  hearing — Hus 
wrote  the  letter  which  of  all  his  letters  has  obtained,  and 
rightly  obtained,  the  greatest  fame.3     It  is  addressed  "  To  the 

1  In  Latin,  sextemi.  The  sending  of  large  sheets  of  paper  probably  aroused 
the  suspicions  of  the  gaolers  and  spies. 

1  Lords  Mikes  of  Divoky  and  Henry  Lefl,  mentioned  later  in  this  letter, 
were  courtiers  of  King  Sigismund. 

*  It  has  been  frequently  translated,  though  generally  not  from  the 
Bohemian  original.  I  translated — of  course  from  the  original — portions  of 
this  letter  in  my  Bohemia,  a  Historical  Sketch,  and  History  of  Bohemian 
Literature.     I  here  give  the  letter  in  its  entirety. 


264 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 


Whole  Bohemian  Nation."  1    Hus  writes:    "  Master  John  Hus, 
in  good  hope  a  servant  of  God,  hopes  that  the  Lord  God  will 
grant  to  all  true  Bohemians  who  love  and  will  love  the  Lord 
God,  to  live  and  die  in  His  grace,  and  to  reside  for  ever  ii 
celestial  joy.     Amen. 

"  Faithful  in  God,  men  and  women,  rich  and  poor!  I  be£ 
and  entreat  you  to  love  the  Lord  God,  praise  His  word,  gladly 
hear  it  and  live  according  to  it.  Cling,  I  beg  you,  to  the 
divine  truth,  which  I  have  preached  to  you  according 
to  God's  law.  I  also  beg  that  if  any  one  has  heard  either 
in  my  sermons,  or  privately,  anything  contrary  to  God's 
truth,  or  if  I  have  written  anything  such — which  I  trust  to 
God  is  not  the  case — he  should  not  retain  it.  I  further  beg 
also  that  if  any  one  has  seen  levity  in  me  in  word  or  deed,  he 
should  not  retain  (remember)  it;  but  let  him  pray  to  God  for 
me  that  God  may  forgive.  I  beg  you  to  love,  praise,  and 
honour  those  priests  who  lead  a  moral  life,  those  in  particular 
who  work  for  the  word  of  God.  I  beg  you  to  beware  of  crafty 
people,  particularly  of  unworthy  priests  of  whom  our  Saviour 
has  said  that  they  are  clothed  like  sheep,  but  are  inwardly 
greedy  wolves.  I  beg  the  nobles  to  treat  the  poor  people 
kindly  and  rule  them  justly.  I  beg  the  burghers  to  conduct 
their  business  honestly.  I  beg  the  artisans  to  perform  their 
duties  conscientiously  and  joyfully.  I  beg  the  servants  to 
serve  their  masters  and  mistresses  faithfully.  I  beg  the 
teachers  to  live  honestly,  to  instruct  their  pupils  carefully,  to 
love  God  above  all ;  for  the  sake  of  His  glory  and  the  good  of 
the  community,  not  from  avarice  and  worldly  ambition 
should  they  teach.  I  beg  the  students  and  other  scholars  to 
obey  and  follow  their  masters  in  everything  that  is  good,  and 
to  study  for  the  (sake  of  the)  praise  of  God,  for  their  own 
salvation,  and  that  of  others.  I  beg  all  to  thank  Lord  Ven- 
ceslas  of  Duba,  otherwise  of  Lestna,  Lord  John  of  Chlum, 
Lord  Henry  of  Plumlov,  Lord  William  Zajic,  Lord  Myska, 
1  "  Veskeremu  Narodu  Ceskemu." 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  265 

and  the  other  nobles  of  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  as  well  as 
the  faithful  lords  of  the  Polish  kingdom,  and  to  gratefully 
remember  their  zeal;  for  as  brave  defenders  of  God  and 
upholders  of  the  truth  they  often  withstood  the  whole  council, 
speaking  and  replying  in  favour  of  my  liberation;  render 
thanks  particularly  to  Lord  Venceslas  of  Duba  and  to  the 
Lord  of  Chlum,  and  believe  what  they  will  tell  you; x  for  they 
were  present  at  the  council  on  several  days  when  I  defended 
myself.  These  men  know  which  Bohemians  2  falsely  accused 
me  of  many  infamous  deeds,  how  the  whole  council  railed 
against  me,  and  how  I  answered  the  questions  that  were 
addressed  to  me.  I  beg  you  also  to  pray  for  his  Majesty  the 
Roman  and  Bohemian  king,3  and  for  his  queen,  and  for  the 
lords,  that  our  beloved  God  may  abide  with  them  in  His  grace 
now,  and  afterwards  guide  them  to  eternal  bliss. 

"  I  write  this  letter  to  you  in  prison  and  in  fetters,  ex- 
pecting to-morrow  the  sentence  of  death,  full  of  hope  in  God? 
resolved  not  to  recede  from  the  divine  truth,  nor  to  recant  the 
errors  which  false  witnesses  have  invented  and  attributed  to 
me.  How  God  has  acted  towards  me,  how  he  has  been  with 
me  during  all  my  troubles — that  you  will  only  know  when  by 
the  grace  of  God  we  shall  meet  again  in  heaven.  Of  Master 
Jerome,  my  beloved  comrade,  I  hear  nothing  except  that  he 
is  in  prison,  as  I  am,  expecting  death  and  that  because  of  his 
faith,  which  he  bravely  expounded  to  the  Bohemians.  It  was 
those  Bohemians  who  are  our  bitterest  enemies  who  delivered 
us  up  for  imprisonment  to  our  other  enemies.  I  beg  you  to 
pray  to  God  for  these  men.  I  also  beg  you  all,  but  especially 
the  Praguers,  to  befriend  the  Bethlehem  chapel,  as  long  as  God 
permits  that  the  divine  word  be  preached  there.  The  devil 
has  been  greatly  incensed  against  this  spot,  and  has  incited 

1  i.e.,  on  their  return  to  Bohemia  after  lias's  death. 
!  The  Bishop  of  Litomysl  and  his  agents. 

*  King  Venceslas,  who  to  the  end  of  his  life  claimed  to  be  King  of  the 
Romans  as  well  as  King  of  Bohemia. 


266  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

against  it  the  parish  priests  and  canons,  knowing  that  his  (the 
devil's)  kingdom  is  disturbed  by  the  preaching  at  that  spot.  I 
hope  that  God  will  deign  to  preserve  the  chapel,  and  that  others 
will  preach  and  will  obtain  there  greater  success  than  was 
possible  to  an  imperfect  man  such  as  I  am.  I  also  beg  you  to 
love  each  other,  not  to  allow  good  men  to  be  oppressed,  and  to 
grant  to  all  that  which  is  due  to  them.  Written  on  Monday, 
the  night  before  the  feast  of  St.  Vitus,  after  the  feast  of  the 
good  angels  "  (June  10). 

Several  of  the  letters  of  Hus,  which  follow  this  one  in 
chronological  order,  refer  to  events  in  Bohemia  which  occurred 
after  the  master's  departure,  and  which  have  already  been 
mentioned  here.1  The  council,  the  majority  of  whose  members 
were  Italians,  does  not  appear  to  have  had  much  knowledge  of 
the  state  of  affairs  in  Bohemia;  but  since  the  deposition  of 
Pope  John,  Sigismund  had  entirely  assumed  the  direction  of 
the  assembly.  Never  deficient  in  vanity  and  presumption,  he 
claimed  to  act  fully  as  representative  of  the  papacy  up  to  the 
time  that  a  new  pontiff  should  have  been  elected.2  It  was 
undoubtedly  through  his  influence  that  the  question  of  com- 
munion in  the  two  kinds  in  Bohemia  was  brought  before  the 
council  and  there  fully  discussed.  The  theologians  who  were 
consulted,  though  not  denying  that  communion  in  the  two 
kinds  had  been  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ,  condemned  its 
revival  by  Jacobellus  in  Bohemia.3  The  matter  was  finally 
settled  at  a  meeting  of  the  council  on  June  15.  A  statement 
was  read  out  by  the  Archbishop  of  Milan  declaring  that, 
"  Though  Christ  had  at  the  Last  Supper  administered  the 
venerated  sacrament   of  communion  in  the   two   species  of 

1  See  p.  232. 

2  It  is  beyond  the  purpose  of  this  book  to  examine  whether  Sigismund 
appointed  bishops  in  Germany  during  the  vacancy  of  the  papal  see;  that  he 
claimed  the  right  to  do  so  is  certain. 

»  "  Hi  (theologi)  ergo  post  multos  congressus  et  frequentes  deliberationes 
teste  Gersone  tandem  sex  conclusionibus  formatis  recente  a  Jacobello  inter 
Bohemos  resuscitatum  Eucharistiae  usum  condemnarunt."  (Von  der  Hardt, 
T.  iv.  p.  331.) 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  267 

bread  and  wine,  yet  nevertheless  the  laudable  authority  of  the. 
holy  canons  and  the  approved  custom  of  the  church  have 
established  that  communion  should  be  administered  only  to 
those  who  are  fasting.  Similarly,  though  in  the  primitive 
church,  the  faithful  received  communion  in  the  two  kinds,  yet 
it  was  afterwards  decreed  that  priests  only  should  receive 
communion  in  the  two  kinds,  and  the  laymen  in  the  species  of 
bread  only.  As  therefore  this  custom  was  wisely  introduced 
by  the  church  and  the  holy  fathers,  and  has  long  been  observed, 
it  is  to  be  considered  as  a  law,  which  cannot  be  contested  or 
changed  except  by  the  authority  of  the  church.  Therefore  no 
priest  shall,  under  penalty  of  excommunication,  administer 
communion  to  the  people  in  the  two  kinds.  Those  who  have 
committed  this  offence  shall,  if  they  do  penitence,  be  re-ad- 
mitted into  the  bosom  of  the  church.  Those  who  harden  their 
hearts  and  refuse  to  do  penance  shall  be  considered  as  heretics, 
and  the  aid  of  the  secular  arm  shall  be  demanded  for  their 
punishment."  1 

The  historical  importance  of  this  decree  cannot  be  over- 
rated. Communion  in  the  two  kinds  became  the  watchword 
of  the  Hussite  Bohemian  Church  up  to  its  extinction  in  1620 
In  the  place  of  a  battle-flag  the  Bohemian  priests  carried 
a  monstrance  containing  the  sacrament — which  it  became 
customary  to  call  the  "  ark  " — before  the  troops  when  they 
engaged  in  battle.2 

1  Abridged  from  Von  der  Hardt,  T.  iv.  p.  334. 

-  The  fact  that  communion  in  the  two  kinds,  "  utraquism,"  as  it  was  called, 
acquired  so  great  an  importance  among  the  Hussites,  induced  the  Bohemians 
to  endeavour  to  connect  Hus  himself  as  closely  as  possible  with  its  intro- 
duction. They  would  certainly  have  proved  their  case,  could  we  believe  in 
the  authenticity  of  a  letter  which  is  included  in  most  collections  of  the  letters 
of  Hus.  In  this  letter  Hus  writes:  "  Exhort  all  to  profess  their  faith  and  to 
receive  communion  in  the  two  kinds,  that  is  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ." 
The  letter,  which  is  undated  and  addressed,  "  Sacerdoti  cuidam,"  is  printed 
by  Palacky  also,  but  he  strongly  doubted  its  genuineness  and  believed  that 
it  was  of  later  origin  and  belonged  to  the  time  when  the  Bohemians  wished 
to  prove  that  their  great  leader  and  martyr  was  entirely  the  originator  of 
the  doctrine  on  which  they  laid  most  stress.  The  letter  is  not  found  among 
the  early  MSS.  of  Hus  but  is  included  in  the  Nuremberg  edition  of  his  works. 
It  is  also  possible  that  the  letter  is  partly  genuine  and  that  the  passage 


268J  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

The  administration  of  communion  in  the  two  kinds  was 
;  only  introduced  by  Master  Jacobellus  of  Stribro  1  after  Hus 
had  left  Prague,  and  he  does  not  appear  at  first  to  have  given 
much  attention  to  the  matter.     In  the  first  letter,  addressed 
to  the  "  Friends  at  Constance  "    (it  is  undated,  but  belongs 
probably  to  the  beginning  of  the  year  1415),  in  which  Hus 
refers  to  this  subject,  he  expresses  no  positive  opinion,  but 
I  writes  that  Scripture  and  the  custom  of  the  primitive  church 
appear  favourable  to  utraquism.     After  the  Roman  Church 
had  by  the  decree  of  June  15  established  a  new  dogma  with 
regard  to  a  matter  on  which  freedom  of  opinion  had  previously 
existed,  Hus  expressed  himself  more  positively.     On  June  21 
he  addressed  a  letter  on  this  subject  to  Gallus  (in  Bohemian, 
Havlik),   preacher   at   the    Bethlehem   chapel.      Havlik    was 
one   of    those   priests   who  opposed  Jacobellus  when  he  first 
established  utraquism.     Hus  writes :  "  Beloved  brother  Gallus, 
preacher  of  the  word  of  Christ !     Do  not  oppose  the  sacrament 
of  the  chalice  of  the  Lord  which  Christ  established  through 
Himself  and  through  His  apostle;    for  no  word  of  Scripture  is 
opposed  to  it,  only  custom  which,  I  ween,  sprang  from  negli- 
gence;   for  we  must  not  follow  custom,  but  Christ's  example 
and   the   truth.     Already   has   the   council,  alleging  custom, 
condemned  the  use  of  the  chalice  at  the  communion  of  laymen 
as  a  heresy,  and  he  who  practises  it  is  to  be  punished  as  a 
heretic  unless  he  comes  to  his  right  mind  (conforms  to  the 
decree    of    the    council).     What    wickedness!     Behold,    they 
condemn  Christ's  enactment  as  heresy!     I  therefore  beg  thee 
in  the  name  of  God  no  longer  to  oppose  Jacobellus,  lest  dissen- 
sion arise  among  the  faithful — a  thing  over  which  the  devil 
would  rejoice.     Be  then,   dearest,   prepared   to  suffer  when 
administering  communion  in  the  two  kinds.     Cling  bravely  to 

advocating  utraquism  was  added  later.  Mr.  Mares  in  his  work,  Listy  Husovy 
(Letters  of  Hus) ,  includes  the  letter  and  believes  it  to  be  a  work  of  Hus.  On 
the  whole  it  is  probable  that  the  theory  according  to  which  Jacobellus  was  the 
originator  of  utraquism  is  the  correct  one. 

1  In  German,  Miess;    that  town  being  little  known,  German  writers  have 
often  called  Jacobellus  "  of  Meissen." 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  269 

Christ's  truth,  reject  unworthy  fears,  confirm  the  other 
brethren  in  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  communion  with  the  chalice  thou  wilt  find 
in  what  I  have  written  in  Constance.  Greet  the  faithful  in 
Christ." 

Several  of  Hus's  last  Bohemian  letters  addressed  "  to  the 
faithful  Bohemians "  (vernym  Cechum)  are  of  the  highest 
interest.  Following  on  the  condemnation  of  utraquism  de- 
creed by  the  council  on  June  15,  that  assembly  had  on  June 
23  decreed  that  all  Hus's  writings  should  be  burnt.  This  in- 
cluded Hus's  works  written  in  his  own  language,  which  most 
of  the  members  of  the  council  were  unable  to  understand. 
The  informer  Palec  may  have  acted  as  translator,  but  it  is 
more  probable  that  he  only  submitted  to  the  council  extracts 
selected  by  him  which  afforded  a  sufficient  pretext  for  the 
destruction  of  the  books.  Hus  refers  to  this  matter  in  several 
letters;  in  one  dated  June  24,  and  probably  intended  to  be 
read  to  the  congregation  at  Bethlehem,  he  writes:  "  Beloved, 
I  exhort  you  not  to  tremble  or  to  be  struck  down  by  fear 
because  they  have  condemned  my  books  to  be  burnt.  Re- 
member that  they  burnt  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah,  which 
God  had  ordered  him  to  write;  yet  did  they  not  escape  that 
which  he  had  prophesied;  for  after  they  had  been  burnt  God 
commanded  that  they  (the  prophecies)  should  again  be  written 
down  and  more  words  added.  This  was  done.  He  (Jeremiah), 
being  in  prison,  dictated,  and  the  saintly  Baruch,  his  secretary, 
wrote  down  his  words;  as  is  written  in  Jeremiah,  chapter 
xxxv.  or  lv.1  Similarly  is  it  written  in  the  books  of  the 
Machabees  that  the  law  of  God  was  burnt  and  that  they  tor- 
tured those  who  possessed  it.  Then  in  the  time  of  the  New 
Testament  they  burnt  the  holy  men,  together  with  the  books 
of  God's  law.     Thus  the  cardinals  condemned  the  books  of 

1  As  was  already  remarked  by  Mladenovic  in  a  MS.  note,  the  passage 
referred  to  by  Hus  is  in  Jeremiah,  chap,  xxxvi.  Hus  was  not  allowed  a 
Bible  in  prison. 


270  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

St.  Gregory,  which  are  named  Moralia,1  and  they  would  have 
burnt  them  all,  had  not  God,  through  his  (Gregory's)  one 
disciple,  Peter,  saved  them.  Also  St.  John  Chrysostomus 
was  condemned  as  a  heretic  by  two  councils  of  priests,  but  the 
gracious  Lord  God,  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  revealed  their 
falsehood.  Having  these  things  before  your  eyes,  let  not  fear 
prevent  you  from  reading  my  books,  nor  induce  you  to  give 
them  up  to  be  burnt.  Remember  what  our  gracious  Saviour 
said  as  a  warning  (Matthew,  chapter  xxiv.),  that  before  the 
day  of  judgment  there  will  be  great  tribulation  such  as  was 
not  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  this  time,  so  that,  were 
it  possible,  even  the  elect  would  be  lead  into  error,  but  because 
of  the  elect  these  days  will  be  shortened.2  Bearing  this  in 
your  minds,  dearest,  persevere  bravely,  for  I  hope  to  God  that 
the  following3  of  Antichrist  will  fear  you  and  leave  you  in 
peace,  and  that  the  Council  of  Constance  will  not  come  to 
Bohemia;  for  I  believe  that  many  who  are  at  this  council  will 
die  before  they  have  extorted  these  books  from  you;  many 
members  of  this  council  also  will  disperse  like  storks  through- 
out the  lands,  and  only  when  winter  comes  will  they  know 
what  evil  deeds  they  did  in  summer.  Consider  that  they  (the 
members  of  the  council)  branded  their  chief  as  a  heretic. 
Answer  now,  ye  preachers  who  preach  that  the  pope  is  an 
earthly  God,  that; he  cannot  sin,  that  he  cannot  commit 
simony,  that,  as  the  jurists  4  affirm,  the  pope  is  the  head  of  the 
entire  holy  church,  which  he  rules  very  wisely,  that  he  is  the 
heart  of  the  holy  church,  which  he  spiritually  nourishes,  the 
fountain  from  which  all  power  and  goodness  flow,  the  sun  of 
the  holy  church  and  the  faultless  refuge  to  which  all  Christians 
should  fly.     But  now,  behold,  this  head  has  been  struck  off. 

1  The  book  referred  to  is  the  Exposition  of  St.  Job  or  Moralia,  by  Pope 
Gregory  I.,  surnamed  the  "  Great  "  (590-604). 

*  Here  also  Hus  is  obviously  quoting  from  memory. 

*  In  Bohemian,  skola=school. 

*  i.e.,  those  priests,  very  numerous  in  the  time  of  Hus,  who  studied  juris- 
prudence rather  than  theology. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  271 

The  earthly  God  is  in  bonds,  and  he  is  openly  convicted  of  sin, 
the  fountain  has  become  dry,  the  sun  has  become  dim,  the 
heart  has  been  plucked  out,  the  refuge  has  fled  from  Constance 
and  has  been  abandoned,  so  that  none  can  flee  to  it.  The 
council  has  condemned  him  (Pope  John  XXIII.)  as  a  heretic 
because  he  sold  indulgences  and  bishoprics,  and  other  bene- 
fices, and  among  those  who  condemned  him  were  many  who 
had  themselves  bought  such  things  from  him,  and  others  who 
had  trafficked  in  them.  Thus  John,  Bishop  of  Litomysl,  was 
present,  who  twice  bid  for  the  archbishopric  of  Prague,  but 
others  outbid  him.  Oh,  why  did  they  not  first  remove  the 
beam  from  their  own  eye?  Truly  their  (canon)  law  says: 
'  If  one  has  obtained  some  dignity  by  means  of  money,  let  him 
be  deprived  of  it.'  Therefore  should  the  seller  and  buyer,  and 
he  who  deposits  money,1  or  acts  as  agent,  be  publicly  con- 
demned. St.  Peter  condemned  and  accursed  Simon  because 
he  wished  to  buy  for  money  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
These  (the  members  of  the  council)  condemn  indeed  and  curse 
the  vendors,  but  they  themselves  continue  buyers  and  givers 
of  earnest-money.  There  is  a  bishop  at  Constance  who  bought 
(benefices)  and  another  who  sold,  and  the  pope  received  money 
for  giving  his  consent.  It  is  thus  also  in  Bohemia  (and 
Moravia),2  as  is  known  to  you.  Oh,  had  but  the  Lord  Jesus 
said  at  the  council :  '  He  among  you  that  is  without  the  sin  of 
simony,  let  him  condemn  Pope  John!  '  It  seems  to  me  that 
they  would  have  run  away,  one  after  the  other.  Why  then 
did  they  kneel  before  him,  kiss  his  feet,  call  him  holiest  father, 
knowing  that  he  was  a  heretic,  a  murderer,  one  guilty  of 
nameless  sin — of  all  of  which  offences  he  was  convicted  ?  Why 
did  the  cardinals  choose  him  as  pope,  knowing  that  he  was  an 
evil  murderer,  one  who  had  killed  the  holy  father  ?  3    Why  did 

1  Earnest-money,  that  was  paid  down  before  the  sale  of  a  benefice  was 
completed. 

*  The  brackets  are  in  the  original. 

*  Hus  refers  to  the  widely-spread  rumour  that  John  XXIII.  had  poisoned 
Pope  Alexander. 


272  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

they  allow  him  to  commit  simony  when  he  had  become  pope 
— they  who  had  been  appointed  his  counsellors,  that  they 
should  counsel  him  wisely?  And  are  not  those  guilty  who 
together  with  him  committed  simony?  Why  then,  till  he 
(Pope  John  XXIII.)  fled  from  Constance,  did  none  dare  say 
anything  to  him  but  '  holiest  father?  '  Then  indeed  they 
were  still  afraid  of  him.  But  when  the  secular  power  with  the 
consent  or  by  the  will  of  God  seized  him,  then  they  conspired 
against  him,  concerting  among  themselves  to  prevent  his 
being  freed.  Assuredly  the  wickedness,  sinfulness,  and  shame 
of  Antichrist  became  manifest  in  this  pope  and  in  the  other 
members  of  the  council.  Already  may  God's  faithful  servants 
understand  the  words  of  the  Saviour  when  he  said :  '  When  ye 
therefore]  shall  see  the  abomination  of  desolation  spoken  of 
by  Daniel  the  prophet  (whoso  readeth  let  him  understand).' * 
The  great  abomination  is  pride,  avarice,  simony.  By  desola- 
tion are  meant  honours  that  are  devoid  of  modesty  and  other 
virtues,  as  we  see  plainly  when  looking  at  those  who  hold  offices 
and  honours.  Oh,  could  I  but  describe  these  sins  that  the 
faithful  may  shun  them.  Gladly  would  I  do  so,  but  I  hope  to 
God  that  he  will  grant  after  me  men  who  are  braver  than  those 
of  the  present  day,  who  will  show  better  the  wickedness  of 
Antichrist,2  and  lay  down  their  lives  for  the  truth  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  will,  I  pray,  grant  you  and  me  eternal  happi- 
ness. Amen.  Written  on  the  day  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  in 
prison,  and  in  fetters,  mindful  that  John  also  was  in  prison  and 
in  fetters  and  was  decapitated  for  God's  truth." 

A  letter  of  Hus  written  two  days  later,  also  addressed  to 
"  the  faithful  Bohemians,"  again  refers  to  the  decree  ordering 
the  burning  of  his  Bohemian  writings.  The  letter  also  con- 
tains an  allusion  to  the  terrible  state  of  depravation  prevailing 

1  St.  Matthew  xxiv.  15. 

2  This  passage  is  one  of  those  in  which  Hus  speaks  prophetically  of  those 
who  were  to  continue  his  struggle  for  church-reform.  These  remarks  are 
probably  the  foundation  of  the  legend — to  be  noted  later — according  to 
which  Hus  had  predicted  the  coming  of  Luther. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  273 

in  Constance  in  consequence  of  the  presence  of  so  many  eccle- 
siastics.    Such  matters  have  often  been  overlooked  by  writers 
of  all  parties.     Yet  they  deserve  attention.     It  was  the  burn- 
ing indignation  kindled  in  the  minds  of  clean-living  and  re- 
spectable men  by  such  scandals  that  produced  the  movement 
in  favour  of  church-reform  far  more  than  any  differences  of 
opinion  on  matters  of  dogma.     In  this  letter  (June  26),  which 
need  not  be  translated  entirely,  Hus  writes:    "  It  has  occurred 
to  me  to  inform  you  how  the  council,  haughty,  avaricious  and 
full  of  all  iniquity,  has  condemned  my  Bohemian  books,  which 
it  had  neither  heard  nor  seen,  nor,  had  it  heard  them,  would 
j  have   understood ;     for   there   were    at   the   council   Italians, 
Frenchmen,  Englishmen,  Spaniards  and  Germans,  and  men  of 
j  other  nations.     The  only  ones  who  would  have  understood 
ithem  were  John,  Bishop  of  Litomysl  and  the  other  Bohemian 
instigators,  with  the  chapters  of  Prague  and  the  Vysehrad,1 
I  who  originated  the  insults  to  God's  truth  and  to  our  Bohemian 
Shome,2  which  (country)  I,  trusting  in  God,  hold  to  be  the  most 
pious  land,  zealous  for  the  divine  word  and  for  morality.     Oh, 
had  you  but  seen  this  council,  which  calls  itself  the  most  holy 
[council  and  claims  infallibility!    you  would  have  beheld  great 
;abomination,  of  which  I  have  heard  the  Suabians  say,  that  in 
thirty  years  their  city  Constance  or  Kostnice 3  will  not  be 
[purged  of  the  sins  which  the  council  committed  in  their  town ; 
Isome  say  that  the  council  has  scandalised  all;   others  spat  out 
when  they  beheld  the  foul  deeds." 

On  the  following  day — June  27 — Hus  sent  a  letter  of  fare- 
well to  the  University  of  Prague  with  which  he  had  been  so 
:losely  connected  during  his  studies  and  during  his  prolonged 
truggle  against  the  enemies  of  church-reform.  In  this  letter, 
vritten  in  Latin  according  to  the  custom  of  the  learned  of  that 

1  The  monks  of  Prague  and  the  Vysehrad,  who  owned  many  of  the  largest 
states  in  Bohemia,  became  bitter  enemies  of  Hus,  as  soon  as  he  began  to 
■reach  against  avarice  and  simony. 

■».«.,  by  defaming  Bohemia  as  a  heretical  country. 

3  The  Bohemian  name  of  the  town  of  Constance. 

S 


274  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

time,  Hus  exhorts  the  masters,  bachelors,  and  students  of  the 
university  to  love  each  other,  to  root  out  schisms,  to  strive 
above  all  for  the  glory  of  God,  bearing  in  mind  how  he  (Hus) 
had  always  striven  to  further  the  progress  of  the  university  for 
the  honour  of  God,  how  he  had  sorrowed  over  discord  and 
excesses  among  the  students,  how  he  had  wished  to  join  in 
union  the  members  of  the  illustrious  Bohemian  nation.  "  And 
behold,"  Hus  continues,  "  some  of  those  who  were  dearest  to 
me,1  for  whom  I  would  have  laid  down  my  life,  have  assailed 
me  with  insult  and  calumny,  have  brought  on  me  much  bitter- 
ness and  a  bitter  death.  May  the  omnipotent  God  forgive 
them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do.  I  pray  for  these  men 
with  a  sincere  heart,  that  God  may  spare  them.  Meanwhile, 
beloved  in  Jesus  Christ,  stand  by  the  acknowledged  truth, 
which  conquers  all  and  grows  ever  stronger  unto  all  eternity. 
Be  it  also  known  to  you  that  I  have  recanted  no  article  nor 
abjured  one.  The  council  also  wished  that  I  should  declare 
false  all  the  articles,  and  any  one,  which  they  might  extract 
from  my  writings.  I  refused  to  do  so  unless  their  falseness 
could  be  proved  from  Scripture ;  should  any  one  of  the  articles 
have  been  falsely  interpreted  I  abhor  such  an  interpretation 
and  commend  its  correction  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  knows  my 
sincere  innermost  intentions,  not  interpreting  them  in  an  evil 
sense,  such  as  was  not  in  my  intention.  You  also  I  exhort  in 
the  Lord  to  reject  whatever  evil  sense  may  be  given  to  any  of 
the  articles,  but  to  retain  the  truth.  Pray  to  God  for  me  and 
greet  one  another  in  holy  peace."  , 

The  last  letter  of  Hus  which  has  been  preserved  is  dated 
June  29.  Written  in  Bohemian,  it  contains  a  short  farewell 
to  Hus's  friends  in  Bohemia,  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  Hus 
writes:  "  May  God  be  with  you  and  grant  you  eternal  reward 
for  the  good  which  you  have  done  to  me  and  still  do,  though 
my  body  will  soon  be  dead.     Do  not  allow  Lord  John   (of 

1  Hus  alludes  to  those  priests  who  had  formerly  been  his  friends,  but 
afterwards  became  spies  and  informers  against  him. 


THE  TRTAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  275 

Chlum),  that  true  and  noble  knight,  my  benefactor,  to  incur 
any  danger,  I  beg  you  in  the  name  of  God,  dear  Sir  Peter  the 
mintmaster  and  Lady  Anna.1  I  beg  you  also  to  live  well  and 
obey  God  according  to  my  teaching.  To  the  queen,2  my  most 
gracious  mistress,  express  my  thanks  for  all  the  benefits  which 
she  has  bestowed  on  me.  Greet  your  household  and  the  other 
faithful  friends,  whom  I  cannot  all  name.  I  beg  you  also  to 
pray  for  me  to  the  Lord  God,  within  whose  holy  grace  we  shall 
by  His  help  meet.  Amen.  I  write  this  letter  expecting  my 
death-sentence  in  prison  and  in  fetters,  which,  as  I  hope,  I 
endure  for  the  sake  of  God's  law.  I  beg  you  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  God  not  to  allow  the  good  priests  3  to  be  ill-treated." 

A  quaint  postscript  follows  the  letter ;   it  runs  thus : 

"  Peter,4  dearest  friend,  keep  my  fur  coat  in  memory  of  me. 

"  Lord  Henry  Lefl,  live  in  good  friendship  with  your  wife. 
I  thank  you  for  your  benefits;   God  will  requite  them  to  you. 

"  Faithful  friends,  Sir  Lider  and  Lady  Margaret,  also 
Master  Skuocek,5  Mikeska,6  and  others,  may  God  grant  you 
eternal  reward  for  the  trouble  you  have  taken  for  me  and  the 
benefits  you  have  conferred  on  me. 

"  Faithful  and  beloved  Magister  Christian,7  may  God  be 
with  thee. 

"  Magister  Martin,  my  disciple,  remember  that  which  I 
have  faithfully  taught  thee.  Master  Nicholas,  Peter,  priest 
of  the  queen,8  and  other  magisters,  be  zealous  for  the  word  of 

1  This  passage  is  not  very  clear.  Peter  of  Svojsin,  Bohemian  mintmaster, 
and  his  wife,  Lady  Anna  of  Frimburg,  were  friends  of  Hus  and  of  church- 
reform.  They  also  had  influence  at  the  court  of  Venceslas.  Hus  begged 
them  to  be  helpful  to  his  protector,  Lord  John  of  Chlum. 

"-  i.e.,  Queen  Sophia. 

3  i.e.,  those  priests  who  were  opposed  to  simony. 

*  Probably  Peter  Mladenovic,  "  Petre  amice  carissime  pellicium  tibi  serva 
in  mei  memoriam."     The  words  are  in  Latin  in  the  Bohemian  letter. 

5  Nothing  is  known  of  the  persons  mentioned  here. 

*  Called  also  Marik  Kacer,  formerly  vice-chancellor  of  the  Bohemian 
kingdom. 

7  Master  Christian  (or  Kristan)  of  Prachatice,  one  of  the  leading  Bohemian 
church-reformers. 

8  Probably  Hus's  successor  as  confessor  of  the  queen. 


276  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

God.     Priest  Havlik,  preach  the  word  of  God.     And  I  beg  you 
all  to  remain  steadfast  in  God's  faith." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  after  the  hearing  on  June  8  Hus 
hoped  to  be  allowed  to  appear  again  before  the  council  and 
expound  his  views  more  thoroughly  than  he  had  hitherto  been 
allowed  to  do.  The  council,  on  the  other  hand,  was  already 
enraged  by  the  slight  and  unsuccessful  attempts  he  had  been 
allowed  to  make  to  define  his  views.  It  was  determined  no 
longer  to  defer  the  formal  condemnation  and  sentence.  The 
council  believed  that  sufficient  evidence  against  Hus  already 
existed.  Few  members  of  the  assembly  probably  troubled  to 
wade  through  Hus's  voluminous  Latin  works,  and  those 
written  in  his  own  language  were  only  understood  by  his  own 
countrymen  and  persecutors.  Yet  by  means  of  so-called 
articles  quoted,  often  unfairly,  from  Hus's  various  works,  it 
was  thought  that  full  proof  of  heresy  had  been  established. 
If  Hus  was  none  the  less  allowed  to  live  nearly  a  month  after 
the  third  day  of  the  hearing,  this  must  be  attributed  to  the 
attempts  made  to  induce  him  to  recant.  I  have  already 
referred  to  the  reasons  why  some  of  Hus's  opponents  would 
have  preferred  such  a  recantation  to  a  public  execution,  and 
have  already  mentioned  the  steps  taken  by  the  "  father  "  for 
that  purpose.  Another  attempt  to  induce  Hus  to  recant  was 
made  on  July  5,  the  day  preceding  the  one  fixed  for  his  last 
appearance  before  the  council,  and  also  for  his  death,  should 
he  still  remain  impenitent.  This  last  attempt  at  mediation 
was  made  directly  through  the  influence  of  King  Sigismund, 
who  was,  of  course,  better  acquainted  with  the  state  of  affairs 
in  Bohemia  than  were  the  members  of  the  council.  Two 
Bohemian  noblemen,  John  of  Chlum  and  Venceslas  of  Duba, 
visited  Hus,  accompanied  by  four  bishops  and  several  priests. 
When  Hus  had  been  led  out  of  his  prison  in  the  Franciscan 
monastery,  Lord  Venceslas  addressed  him  in  frank  and  manly 
words,  which  contrast  very  favourably  with  the  crafty,  in- 
sincere, and  treacherous  manner  in  which  the  council  dealt 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  277 

with  Hus.  Duba  said:  "  Behold,  Master  John,  we  are  lay-; 
men  and  cannot  give  advice.  Consider  then  if  thou  feelest 
thyself  guilty  of  any  of  the  things  of  which  thou  art  accused. 
If  so,  do  not  hesitate  to  accept  instruction  and  to  recant.  But 
if  thou  dost  not  feel  guilty  of  these  things  that  are  brought 
forward  against  thee,  be  guided  by  thy  conscience,  do  nothing 
against  thy  conscience,  nor  lie  before  the  face  of  God;  rather 
hold  unto  death  to  the  truth  as  thou  hast  understood  it." 
Hus  answered  humbly  and  in  tears:  "Be  it  known  to  you""^ 
that  if  I  knew  that  I  had  written  or  preached  anything  against 
the  law  and  the  holy  mother  the  church,  I  would  humbly 
recant  it ;  may  God  be  my  witness  to  this ;  but  I  always  desire 
that  they  should  show  me  doctrines  that  are  better  and  more 
credible  than  those  which  I  have  written  and  taught.  If 
such  be  shown  me,  I  will  gladly  recant."  Then  one  of  the 
bishops  who  was  standing  near  answered,  saying:  "  Wilt  thou 
then  be  wiser  than  the  whole  council?  "  But  the  master  said 
to  him:  "  I  do  not  claim  to  be  wiser  than  the  whole  council, 
but,  I  beg  you,  give  me  the  meanest  (minimus)  man  at  the 
council  that  he  may  instruct  me  in  better  and  more  effective 
doctrine,  and  I  am  prepared  immediately  to  recant."  In 
answer  to  these  words  the  bishops  said:  "  Behold,  how 
obstinate  he  is  in  his  heresy."  Then,  after  ordering  him  to  be 
led  back  to  his  prison,  they  went  away.1 

The  following  day — July  6 — had  been  fixed  on  for  the 
execution,  or  as  the  Bohemians  deemed  it,  the  martyrdom  of 
Hus.  The  council,  to  give  more  solemnity  to  the  proceedings, 
met  at  the  cathedral  on  this  occasion.  Sigismund  sat  on  a 
throne  near  the  high  altar  in  full  state,  surrounded  by  all  his 
courtiers.  The  members  of  the  council  were  present  almost 
without  exception,  and  the  rest  of  the  vast  cathedral  was  filled 
with  spectators,  among  them  almost  all  the  Bohemians  who 
were  then  at  Constance.  It  was  probably  in  view  of  their 
expected  presence  that  Sigismund  had  made  extensive  military 

1  Mladenovic. 


V 


278  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

preparations.  He  had  assembled  at  Constance  a  large  force 
of  Hungarian  mercenaries,  who  as  hereditary  enemies  of  the 
Bohemians  were  ready  to  obey  even  the  most  severe  orders 
which  they  might  receive.  Archbishop  Wallenrod  was  deputed 
to  conduct  Hus  from  his  prison  to  the  cathedral.  Hus  was 
"  dressed  in  black  with  a  handsome  silver  girdle,  and  wore  his 
robes  as  a  magister."  As  soon  as  he  had  left  the  prison,  the 
couch  on  which  he  had  slept  during  his  last  days  was  burnt 
and  the  ashes  were  thrown  into  the  Rhine.  The  fame  of  his 
sanctity  had  already  spread  so  widely  that  it  was  feared  that 
the  Bohemians  would  endeavour  to  collect  relics  of  the 
martyr.  When  Hus,  with  the  archbishop  and  his  gaolers, 
arrived  at  the  cathedral,  he  was  not  at  first  admitted  into  the 
interior  of  the  building,  where  high  mass  was  being  celebrated. 
A  wooden  partition  had  been  erected  at  the  gate  of  the 
cathedral,  behind  which  Hus  waited  till  the  religious  cere- 
monies had  been  concluded.  Hus  was  then  admitted  into  the 
interior  of  the  cathedral.  After  passing  the  sixth  column  in 
the  nave  he  knelt  down  and  prayed  fervently  for  several 
minutes.1  The  judicial  proceedings — if  we  can  venture  to 
give  them  that  name — now  began  immediately.  After  the 
|  Bishop  of  Constance  had  seriously  admonished  all  present  not 
'  to  disturb  the  proceedings,  the  Bishop  of  Lodi  preached  a  short 
sermon  in  which  he  laid  stress  on  the  danger  of  heresy,  and 
also  expressed  strong  disapproval  of  simony.  He  no  doubt 
knew  that  numerous  members  of  the  assembly  were  accused 
of  being  simonists,  and  that  this  had  greatly  contributed  to 
strengthen  Hus  as  a  preacher  of  church- reform.  Henry  de 
Piro,  the  lay  administrator,  or,  as  it  was  termed,  "  procurator  " 
of  the  council,  then  proposed  that  the  proceedings  against  Hus 
should  now  be  brought  to  a  conclusion,  that  he  might  be 
delivered  over  to  the  secular  authorities  for  punishment.     One 

1  The  spot — I  know  not  on  what  authority — is  still  shown  to  visitors  to 
the  cathedral.  They  are  also  told  that  the  spot  on  the  pavement  where  Hus 
knelt  always  remains  dry  even  when  the  rest  of  it  is  very  moist. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  279 

of  the  bishops  was  then  instructed  to  read  out  the  articles 
containing  the  heresies  of  which  Hus  was  accused.  Sixteen 
of  them  were  passages  derived  from  the  writings  of  Wycliffe 
which  Hus  had  incorporated  in  his  works,  thus  assuming  re- 
sponsibility for  them.  Hus  accepted  the  responsibility,  but 
he  begged  to  be  allowed  to  explain  the  sense  in  which  he  had 
interpreted  Wycliffe's  words.  All  who  have  even  a  slight 
knowledge  of  the  writings  of  the  English  divine  know  how 
difficult  and  often  ambiguous  they  are.  Hus's  prayer  was 
none  the  less  refused.  He  was,  indeed,  on  this  day  granted 
hardly  any  hearing  and  treated  with  greater  brutality  than 
when  he  previously  appeared  before  the  council.  Thirty 
articles  chosen  from  Hus's  own  works  were  then  read  out. 
They  dealt,  as  had  the  former  ones,  mainly  with  the  questions 
of  predestination,  of  the  sacrament — concerning  which  state- 
ments which  he  had  never  made  were  again  falsely  attributed 
to  Hus, — of  the  church,  and  of  the  limits  of  the  papal  power. ' 
Hus  again  attempted  to  speak,  but  in  spite  of  the  admonition 
of  the  Bishop  of  Constance,  he  was  interrupted  by  loud  cries. 
When  the  article  which  referred  to  predestination  1  was  read 
out,  Hus  wished  to  explain  with  what  limitations  he  accepted 
that  doctrine.  He  had  always  maintained  that  his  teaching 
on  that  subject  was  identical  with  St.  Augustine's.  Hus  here 
incidentally  referred  to  the  treatment  he  had  received  on  the 
part  of  the  council.  He  again  stated  that  he  had  come  to 
Constance  of  his  own  free  will  and  with  a  letter  of  safe-conduct 
from  Sigismund.  He  looked  in  this  moment  at  the  emperor, 
who,  it  was  noticed,  blushed.  The  council  now  determined  to 
silence  Hus  at  any  price.  Cardinal  D'Ailly,  whose  special 
bitterness  against  Hus  has  been  noted  by  many  writers,  said 
to  him:  "  Be  silent  now,  you  will  afterwards  reply  to  all  the 
articles  at  the  same  time."  Hus  answered:  "  How  can  I 
answer  them  all  at  the  same  time,  when  I  cannot  even  think  of 

1  It  ran  thus:    "  Unica  et  sancta  universalis  ecclesia  quae  est  praedestina- 
torum  universitas,"  etc.  (Mladenovic). 


280  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

them  all  at  the  same  time?  "  When  somewhat  later,  during 
the  reading  of  the  articles,  Hus  again  attempted  to  explain 
his  meaning,  the  Cardinal  of  Florence,  Zabarella,  said,  rising 
from  his  seat:  "  Be  silent,  we  have  already  heard  thee  suffi- 
ciently; "  then  addressing  the  beadles  who  surrounded  Hus, 
he  said  to  them:  "  Force  him  to  be  silent."  Hus  then  knelt 
down  and  said  with  a  loud  voice:  "  I  beg  you,  in  the  name  of 
God,  to  grant  me  a  hearing,  that  those  who  are  present  may 
not  think  that  I  hold  heretical  opinions.  After  that  deal  with 
me  as  you  see  fit."  The  prohibition,  however,  was  main- 
tained. Hus  then  for  a  time  ceased  to  address  the  council, 
wishing  to  avoid  that  physical  violence  be  used  against  him 
by  the  beadles  and  mercenary  soldiers  within  the  precincts  of 
the  cathedral.  He  continued  to  kneel,  and  prayed  with  eyes 
lifted  heavenward,  commending,  as  Mladenovic  writes,  his 
cause  to  God,  the  justest  of  judges. 

After  the  articles  followed  the  depositions  of  the,  mostly 
Bohemian,  witnesses  against  Hus.  One  of  the  accusers,  a 
doctor  of  divinity,  stated  that  Hus  had  declared  "  that  he  was 
and  would  be  a  fourth  person  in  the  divinity."  1  It  is  not 
known  who  this  doctor  was,  but  suspicion  certainly  points  to 
Stephen  Palec,  next  to  Michael  de  causis  the  most  impudent 
and  the  most  unscrupulous  of  the  enemies  of  Hus.  This 
accusation  of  blasphemy  of  the  deepest  dye  roused  Hus  to 
make  one  more  attempt  to  record  a  protest.  "  Let  that 
doctor,"  he  said,  "  be  named  who  has  deposed  this  against 
me."  The  bishop  who  was  reading  out  the  articles  answered: 
"  It  is  unnecessary  that  he  should  be  named."  It  is,  however, 
probable  that  Hus  was  allowed  to  answer  at  some  length.2 
The  mercenaries  who  surrounded  him,  contrary  to  the  orders 
which  they  had  received,  used  no  violence  against  him.     The 

1  "  Quomodo  ipse  se  quartam  fore  et  esse  personam  in  divinis  posuisset." 
The  importance  of  this  accusation  has  been  overlooked  by  many  writers 
on  Hus. 

a  This  appears  very  probable,  as  Mladenovic,  referring  to  Hus's  remarks, 
writes :   Magister  inter  alia  dixit. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  281 

last  accusation  against  Hus  appeared  so  monstrous  that  even 
uneducated  men  felt  the  cruelty  of  preventing  the  accused 
from  replying.  Hus  said,  among  other  things:  "Be  it  far 
from  me  that  I  should  call  myself  the  fourth  person  of  the 
divinity;  such  a  thought  could  find  no  place  in  my  mind.  But 
I  consistently  affirm  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  are  one  God  and  one  entity  and  a  trinity  of  persons." 
It  should  be  mentioned  that  almost  all  modern  writers  belong- 
ing to  the  Roman  Church,  Hefele  in  particular,  have  admitted 
the  absolute  falsehood  of  this  infamous  accusation.  Hus  was, 
lastly,  accused  of  having  appealed  to  God,  a  proceeding  which 
was  declared  to  be  heretical.  In  a  brief  statement  which  Hus 
was  allowed  to  make  he  declared  that  he  firmly  maintained 
that  there  could  be  no  surer  appeal  than  that  to  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Lord,  who  is  not  influenced  by  evil  gifts,  nor  deceived  by 
false  witnesses,  but  who  judges  all  according  to  their  merits. 

When  all  the  articles  derived  from  Wycliffe's  and  from 
Hus's  own  writings  and  the  statements  of  the  witnesses  had 
been  read  out,  it  became  certain  that  the  council  intended  to 
terminate  the  trial  of  Hus  without  further  delay.  He  was  not 
allowed  to  reply  to  the  vast  amount  of  accusations  that  had 
been  brought  against  him;  it  would  indeed,  as  Hus  pointed 
out,  have  been  impossible  to  do  so  at  one  continuous  sitting. 
A  declaration  that  Hus  had  sent  to  the  council  on  July  1  was, 
however,  read  out.1  He  declared  that,  fearing  to  offend  God 
and  to  commit  perjury,  he  could  not  recant  all  the  articles,  nor 
indeed  any  of  those  that  had  been  wrongly  attributed  to  him 
by  false  witnesses,  who  had  accused  him — and  he  called  on 
God  as  witness  of  this — of  preaching,  asserting,  and  defending 
views  that  he  had  never  held.  He  further  declared  that  if 
any  statement  which  was  really  contained  in  his  writings2 
was  heretical,  he  detested  and  abhorred  it,  and  was  ready  to 
recant  it. 

1  The  document  is  printed  in  full  in  Von  der  Hardt,  T.  iv.  p.  389. 
1  This  refers  to  the  statement  constantly  repeated  by  Hus,  that  his  writings 
had  been  incorrectly  quoted. 


282  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Sentence  on  Hus  was  then  immediately  passed.  Two 
decrees  were  read  out  by  "  a  bald  and  old  Italian  priest."  The 
first  ordered  all  Hus's  writings,  both  in  Latin  and  in  his  own 
language,  to  be  destroyed.  Hus  said:  "Why  do  you  con- 
demn my  books,  when  I  have  always  wished  and  asked  for 
other  better  books  that  shall  refute  them  (mine),  and  I  still 
wish  it  ?  But  up  to  now  you  have  shown  me  no  writings  in 
contradiction  to  my  own,  nor  have  you  proved  that  these 
contain  any  heresies.  As  to  my  Bohemian  writings,  which 
you  have  never  seen,  why  do  you  condemn  them?v*  The 
second  sentence  dealt  with  the  person  of  Hus.  He  was  de- 
clared to  be  a  true  and  manifest  heretic,  who  was  to  be  de- 
livered over  to  the  secular  authorities  for  punishment.  It  has 
already  been  mentioned  that,  in  accordance  with  an  ancient 
custom,  the  church  did  not  itself  pronounce  the  sentence  of 
death.  Hus  then  knelt  down,  and  praying  with  a  loud  voice 
said:  "  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  forgive  all  my  enemies,  I  entreat 
you,  because  of  your  great  mercifulness.  You  know  that 
they  have  falsely  accused  me,  brought  forth  false  witnesses 
against  me,  devised  false  articles  against  me.  Forgive  them 
because  of  your  immense  mercifulness."  When  they  heard 
this,  many  of  the  members  of  the  council  and  particularly 
the  foremost  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  derided  him.1  The 
ignominious  ceremonies  known  as  the  degradation  and  decon- 
secration were  then  performed.  Hus  was  dressed  in  full  eccle- 
siastical vestments  and  the  chalice  and  paten  were  placed  in 
his  hands.  Then  the  ecclesiastical  vestments  were  removed 
and  the  chalice  and  paten  again  taken  from  him.  While  this 
was  being  done,  the  Archbishop  of  Milan,  who  with  five  bishops 
officiated  at  this  function,  said:  "  Oh,  cursed  Judas,  who  hast 
left  the  realms  of  peace  and  allied  thyself  with  the  Jews,  we 
to-day  take  from  thee  the  chalice  of  salvation."  Hus  replied 
that  he  hoped  to  drink  of  the  chalice  in  the  heavenly  kingdom 

1  "  Et    cum    hoc    dixisset,    multi    et    praesertim    sacerdotum    principes 
deridebant  ilium  "  (Mladenovic). 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  283 

on  that  very  day.  When  these  ceremonies  had  ended,  the 
bishops  said:  "  We  commit  thy  soul  to  the  devil."  Hus 
answered:  "  And  I  commit  it  to  the  most  sacred  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  A  high  paper  cap  was  then  as  a  sign  of  derision 
placed  on  the  head  of  the  martyr.  On  it  were  written  the 
words:  Hie  est  heresiarcha.  Sigismund  then  requested  Louis 
Count  Palatine  *  to  hand  over  Hus  to  the  beadles  of  the  city  of 
Constance.  A  large  armed  force,  consisting  of  some  of  the 
townsmen  of  Constance,  Sigismund's  Hungarian  mercenaries, 
and  troops  in  the  service  of  the  Count  Palatine  and  other 
German  princes — about  3000  men  in  all — accompanied  Hus. 
A  large  crowd,  including  many  Bohemians,  among  them 
Mladenovic,  joined  the  mournful  procession,  though  Sigis- 
mund, hoping  as  far  as  possible  to  exclude  the  Bohemians, 
had  given  orders  that  the  city  gates  should  be  closed  as  soon 
as  Hus  had  passed.  From  the  cathedral  Hus  was  led  through 
the  churchyard — where  his  books  were  just  being  burnt — 
along  the  street  now  known  as  the  "  Huss  Strasse,"  past  the 
house  of  the  widow  Fida,  and  through  the  Schnetz  gate  to  the 
place  of  execution.  That  spot,2  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile 
from  the  Schnetz  gate,  is  now  marked  by  a  stone  with  an  in- 
scription, and  has  become  a  favourite  place  of  pilgrimage  for 
Hus's  countrymen.  The  account  of  the  last  moments  of  the 
martyr  can  best  be  given  in  the  words  of  Mladenovic,3  who 
was  present.     He  writes:   "  When  he  (Hus)  had  arrived  at  the 

1  Lenfant  (Histoire  du  Concile  de  Constance)  relates  that  when  the  elector 
Palatine  Otho  Henry,  the  last  of  his  line,  died  childless,  he  said  that  God 
punished  the  sins  of  the  forefathers  even  in  the  third  and  fourth  generations, 
and  that  he  had  been  punished  because  his  great-great-grandfather,  the 
Count  Palatine  Louis,  had,  by  order  of  the  emperor,  conducted  Hus  to  the 
stake. 

2  Contrary  to  what  has  been  often  stated,  the  spot  is  not  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  the  Rhine. 

*  That  indefatigable  Bohemian  scholar,  Mr.  Patera,  some  years  ago  dis- 
covered and  published  a  previously  unknown  contemporary  Bohemian 
account  of  the  death  of  Hus.  I  had  intended  to  compare  it  with  the  account 
of  Mladenovic,  but,  finding  that  this  would  interfere  with  the  course  oi  the 
narrative,  I  have  preferred  to  give  as  an  appendix  a  translation  of  the  whole 
of  the  account. 


V 


284  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

place  of  torture  he  began,  on  bent  knees,  with  his  arms  ex- 
tended and  his  eyes  lifted  to  heaven,  to  recite  psalms  with 
great  fervour,  particularly,  '  Have  mercy  on  me,  oh  God,'  and 
'  In  thee,  oh  Lord,  do  I  put  my  trust.'  He  repeated  the  verse: 
'  Into  thy  hand  I  commit  my  spirit,'  and  it  was  noticed  by  his 
friends  that  he  prayed  joyfully  and  with  a  beautiful  counte- 
nance. Now  the  place  of  torture  was  among  gardens  in  a 
field  on  the  road  that  leads  from  the  city  of  Constance  in  the 
direction  of  the  castle  of  Gottlieben,  between  the  gate  and  the 
moat  at  the  outworks  of  the  city.  Some  laymen  who  stood 
near  the  spot  said :  '  We  know  not  what  he  has  formerly  said 
or  done,  but  we  now  see  and  hear  that  he  prays,  and  speaks 
holy  words ! '  Others  said :  '  Assuredly  it  were  well  that  he 
should  have  a  confessor,  who  would  hear  him.'  But  a  priest 
who  was  riding  past,  clad  in  a  green  doublet  that  was  lined  with 
red  silk,  said :  '  He  may  not  be  heard,  neither  may  a  confessor 
be  granted  to  him,  for  he  is  a  heretic'  Master  John,  however, 
while  still  in  prison,  had  made  confession  to  a  doctor  (of 
divinity),  who  was  a  monk,1  and  had  been  heard  by  him,  and 
had  received  absolution,  as  he  mentions  in  one  of  the  letters 
which  he  sent  to  his  disciples  from  prison.  While  he  (Hus) 
was  praying,  as  mentioned  before,  the  crown  of  blasphemy,  as 
it  was  called,  fell  from  his  head.  He  noticed  that  three  devils 
were  painted  on  it  and  smiled.  And  some  of  the  mercenaries 
who  stood  near  said :  '  Let  it  be  again  placed  on  his  head,  that 
he  be  burnt  together  with  his  masters,  the  devils  whom  he 
served!  ' 

"  Rising  from  his  prayers  by  order  of  the  lictor  (soldier,  or 
town-official),  Hus  said  with  a  loud  and  intelligible  voice,  so 
that  he  could  be  well  heard  by  his  disciples:  'Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  I  will  bear  patiently  and  humbly  this  horrible,  shameful, 
and  cruel  death  for  the  sake  of  Thy  gospel  and  the  preaching  of 
Thy  word.'  When  he  was  led  past  the  spectators,  he  ad- 
dressed them,  begging  them  not  to  believe  that  he  had  ever 

1  "  Cuidam  doctori  monacho." 


THE    BURNING    OF    JOHN    IMS,     I4.I3 
SCATTERING    OF    HUS's    ASHES 

[  run  Reichental's  Chronicle  of  the  Council  of  Const; 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  285 

held,  preached,  or  taught  the  tenets  which  had  been  ascribed 
to  him  by  false  witnesses.  He  was  then  stripped  of  his  clothes 
and  tied  with  cords  to  a  stake,  and  his  arms  were  turned  back- 
ward to  the  stake.  When  his  face  was  at  first  turned  to  the 
east,  some  of  the  spectators  said:  '  Let  him  not  be  turned  to 
the  east,  for  he  is  a  heretic,  but  to  the  west;  '  and  it  was  done 
thus.  When  a  rusty  chain  was  placed  round  his  neck,  he 
said,  smiling,  to  the  lictors:  '  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  my  Re- 
deemer, was  bound  with  a  harder  and  heavier  chain,  and  I, 
poor  wretch,  fear  not  to  be  fettered  with  this  chain  for  His 
sake.'  Now  the  stake  consisted  of  a  thick  pole,  which  they 
had  sharpened  at  one  end  and  driven  into  the  ground  in  this 
field ;  under  the  feet  of  the  master  they  placed  two  faggots  and 
some  loads  of  wood.  When  attached  to  the  stake  he  retained 
one  of  his  boots,  and  a  fetter  on  one  of  his  feet.  They  then 
heaped  up  round  his  body  wooden  faggots  mixed  with  straw  so 
that  they  reached  up  to  his  chin."  Mladenovic  then  refers  to 
the  last  attempt — it  was  little  more  than  a  formality — made 
by  the  imperial  marshal,  Pappenheim,  to  induce  Hus  to  recant, 
and  then  describes  the  martyrdom.  "  When  the  lictors,"  he 
writes,  "  lighted  the  pile,  the  master  first  sang  with  a  loud 
voice,  '  Christ,  son  of  the  living  God,  have  mercy  on  us,'  and 
then  again,  '  Christ,  son  of  the  living  God,  have  mercy  on  us.' 
When  a  third  time  he  began  singing,  '  Who  art  born  of  the 
virgin  Mary,'  the  wind  soon  blew  the  flames  into  his  face; 
then,  still  silently  praying  and  moving  his  lips,  he  expired  in 
the  Lord.  The  space  of  time  during  which,  after  having 
become  silent,  he  still  moved  before  dying  was  that  required 
to  recite  two,  or  at  most  three  paternosters."  Mladenovic 
then  describes  the  detestable  outrages  that  were  committed 
on  the  remains  of  the  body  of  Hus  l  to  prevent  their  being 
preserved  as  relics  by  his  countrymen. 

That  the  execution  of  Hus  would  have  world-wide  conse- 

1  These  ignoble  outrages  are  described   more  fully  by   Von  der    Hardt, 
T.  iv.  p.  450. 


286  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

quences  seems  to  have  been  foreseen  by  many  of  his  con- 
temporaries, and  legends  soon  arose  round  the  memory  of  the 
martyr.  Thus  it  was  said  that  an  old  woman  had  brought 
faggots  to  add  to  the  funeral  pile,  and  that  Hus  had  then 
spoken  the  words :  0  sancta  simplicitas.  It  was  also  said  that 
Hus — and  this  legend  was  undoubtedly  based  on  remarks  of  Hus 
that  have  been  mentioned  in  this  work — had  predicted  that  he 
would  have  a  successor  who  would  be  successful  in  the  attempt 
in  which  he  had  failed — the  general  reform  of  the  church.1 

Few  events  in  history  have  given  rise  to  more  controversy 
!than  the  trial  and  execution  of  Hus.  In  offering  an  opinion 
on  this  matter,  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  the  con- 
duct of  the  council  and  that  of  Sigismund.  According  to  the 
ruling  of  the  Roman  Church,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  council,  as 
there  was  then  no  pope,  to  declare  heretics  all  who  differed 
from  the  teaching  of  the  church,  and  to  hand  over  such  men 
to  the  temporal  authorities.  The  latter  were  empowered  by  a 
decree  of  the  Emperor  Frederick  II.  to  order  them  to  be  burnt. 
No  faith  could  or  should  be  kept  with  heretics.2  Anything 
that  resembled  a  bona-fide  trial  was,  therefore,  out  of  ques- 
tion. No  legal  representative  could  be  granted  a  heretic.  He 
had  merely  to  appear  before  the  council,  recant  everything  he 
was  accused  of  having  said,  and  receive  condign  punishment. 
Gerson,  one  of  the  principal  actors  in  the  tragedy  of  Constance, 
strongly  upheld  this  standpoint,3  and  it  is  that  also  of  the 
earlier  Roman  writers  on  the  death  of  Hus.  Their  attitude  is 
certainly  manlier  and  more  straightforward  than  that  of  later 
defenders  of  the  council,  who  falsely  accused  Hus  of  having 
attempted  to  fly  from  Constance,  of  having  preached  and  said 
mass  publicly  at  Constance,  etc.     It  is  true  that,  even  if  we 

1  The  tale  that  Hus  had  said  that  they  would  indeed  burn  the  goose 
("  hus  "  signifies  goose  in  Bohemian),  but  that  afterwards  a  swan  would  come, 
whom  they  would  not  burn,  is  founded  on  the  totally  erroneous  supposition 
that  "  Luther  "  signifies  "  swan  "  in  Bohemian. 

*  "  Ad  poenam  quoque  pertinet  et  odium  hereticorum  quod  fides  illis  data 
servanda  non  sit  "    (Simancha  Inst,  cath.,  pp.  46,  52,  quoted  by  Lord  Acton). 

s  See  Schwab,  Johannes  Gerson,  particularly  p.  583. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  287 

admit  the  standpoint  of  the  council,  the  attempts  to  interrupt 
Hus  by  cries  and  insults  when  he  endeavoured  to  speak 
remain  indefensible. 

We  have,  however,  to  consider  a  further  point  which  has 
recently  attracted  considerable  attention :  Was  Hus  a  heretic  ? 
In  other  words,  did  he  hold  any  doctrine  that  was  opposed  to 
the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  development  which 
it  had  attained  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century?  It 
has  here  been  repeatedly  stated,  and  cannot  be  sufficiently 
often  reaffirmed,  that  the  principal  cause  on  which  Hus  staked 
his  life  was  that  of  church-reform.  An  intensely  pious  and 
rigidly  virtuous  priest,  he  viewed  with  what  to  worldly  men 
may  appear  a  puerile  feeling  of  horror  and  indignation  the  un- 
speakable degradation  of  the  Bohemian  clergy.  It  has  been 
necessary  in  this  book,  destined  for  the  general  public,  to 
withhold  much  evidence  on  this  point.  The  fact  that  the 
ruling  powers  of  the  Roman  Church  made  no  attempt  to  dis- 
countenance the  vices  of  its  clergy,  together  with  the  study  of 
Wycliffe's  works,  then  led  Hus  to  adverse  criticism  of  the 
ecclesiastical  organisation  of  the  church,  and  of  papacy  in 
particular.  Though  there  were,  as  already  mentioned,  in  the 
fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries  writers  who  maintained  the 
overwhelming  power  and  authority  of  the  pope  as  strongly 
and  as  unconditionally  as  has  been  done  recently,  yet  freedom 
of  opinion  on  such  matters  still  existed  at  the  time  of  Hus, 
and  he  cannot  be  called  a  heretic  for  expressing  views  con- 
trary to  those  of  Rome  on  questions  which  only  the  councils  of 
Trent  and  the  Vatican  have  declared  to  be  matters  of  dogma. 
It  is  certain  that  many  of  the  accusations  against  Hus  were 
absolutely  false.  This  applies  not  only  to  the  monstrous 
statement  that  Hus  had  pretended  to  be  a  fourth  person 
within  the  divinity,  but  also  to  such  accusations  as  that  Hus 
had  declared  the  sacrament  to  be  invalid  when  administered 
by  an  unworthy  priest.  Hus  had  in  his  writings  frequently 
and  distinctly  expressed  the  contrary  opinion.     The  question 


288  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

therefore  arose  whether  a  revision  of  the  judgment  on  Hus, 
such  as  took  place  in  the  case  of  Joan  of  Arc,  would  not  be 
possible.  Professor  Kalousek  of  the  Bohemian  University  of 
Prague,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  historians  of  Bohemia, 
as  long  ago  as  in  1869,  addressed  a  pseudonymous  letter  to  one 
of  the  newspapers  of  Prague  suggesting  such  a  revision.  The 
matter  at  the  time  attracted  considerable  attention,  and 
several  distinguished  Roman  Catholic  priests  published  replies 
to  the  letter.  In  a  lengthy  and  very  fair  work  on  the  teaching 
!of  Hus,  Dr.  Anton  Lenz,  one  of  the  most  eminent  Bohemian 
divines,  though  doing  full  justice  to  the  moral  qualities,  the 
integrity,  and  piety  of  Hus,  yet  maintains  that  he  was  a  heretic, 
and  that  the  council  was  justified  in  declaring  him  to  be  one. 
It  cannot,  however,  be  denied  that  among  the  heretical  views 
which  Dr.  Lenz  in  his  able  book  attributed  to  Hus,  some  refer 
to  matters  which  the  Roman  Church  had  not  at  that  time 
declared  to  be  dogmas.  Another  Bohemian  priest,  Dr.  Francis 
Sulc,  has  published  x  a  Latin  and  Bohemian  version  of  the 
famed  thirty  articles  against  Hus,  and  has  printed  with  each 
article  the  recognised  teaching  of  the  Roman  Church  on  the 
subject  in  question.  To  one  who  has  no  pretence  to  write  as 
a  theologian  it  certainly  appears  that  on  certain  questions, 
that  of  predestination  in  particular,  Hus's  teaching  did  differ 
from  that  of  the  Roman  Church,  even  in  the  development 
which  it  had  reached  in  the  fifteenth  century.  The  question 
is,  however,  a  very  difficult  one,  and  Professor  Kalousek  has  in 
a  recent  lecture  truly  stated  that  much  further  study  of  the 
life  and  the  works  of  Hus  is  required.  Even  quite  recently 
valuable  works  of  the  Bohemian  church-reformer  that  were 
hidden  away  in  formerly  inaccessible  libraries  have  been  made 
public.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that,  in  view  of  the 
present  current  of  opinion  in  the  Roman  church,  a  rehabili- 
tation of  Hus  is  now  much  more  improbable  than  at  the 
time  mentioned  above. 

1  Privately    printed    at    the    press    of    the    Bishop    of    Kralove    Hradec 
(Koniggratz). 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  289 

Opinion  will  always  differ  with  regard  to  the  question 
whether  Hus  should  be  considered  as  the  last  of  the  mediaeval 
reformers  who  wished  only  to  purify  the  church  and  restore  it 
to  its  primitive  simplicity,  or  as  a  forerunner  of  the  g 
church-reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Extreme  writers 
of  both  parties  have  unanimously  adopted  the  latter  supposi- 
tion. Moderate  writers — who  it  is  unnecessary  to  say  are  few 
in  number — have  alone  sometimes  expressed  doubts.  That 
Hus  was  a  forerunner  of  Luther  has  been  constantly  main- 
tained by  ultramontane  writers,  and  they  extend  to  him  the 
unconditionally  adverse  judgment  which  they  pronounce  on 
the  German  reformer.  On  the  other  hand,  most  German 
Protestant  writers  on  the  Hussite  movement,  such  as 
Krummel,  Lechler,  Neander,  have  also  declared  Hus  to  be  the 
precursor  of  the  German  reformation,  and  have  praised  him 
as  such.  Dr.  Harnack  alone  has  expressed  a  contrary  opinion.1 
Luther  himself  undoubtedly  considered  Hus  as  his  forerunner. 
In  a  well-known  passage  of  his  letters,  written  when  he  had 
just  begun  to  study  the  works  of  Hus,  he  remarks:  "  We  have 
all  been  Hussites  without  knowing  it."  On  many  occasions 
Luther  expressed  his  admiration  for  Hus  in  a  manner  not  dis- 
similar from  that  in  which  the  great  Bohemian  lauded  Wycliffe. 
Thus  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition  of  Hus's  letters,  the 
German  reformer  calls  him  optimum  et  piisimum  virum — to 
quote  but  one  of  many  instances.2  Elsewhere  Luther  writes: 
"  If  this  man  was  not  a  noble,  strong,  and  dauntless  martyr 
and  confessor  of  Christ,  then  will  it  indeed  be  hard  for  any 
man  to  obtain  salvation." 

1  "  Die  wiclifitisch — hussitische  Bewegung  .  .  .  muss  als  die  reifste 
Ausgestaltung  der  mittelalterlichen  Reformbewegungen  gelten.  Allein  es 
wird  sich  zeigen  dass  auch  sie  zwar  vieles  gelockert  und  vorbereitet,  jedoch 
keinen  reformatorischen  Gedanken  zum  Ausdrucke  gebracht  hat:  auch  sie 
halt  sich  auf  dem  augustinisch — franciscanischem  Boden  "  (Dr.  Harnack, 
Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  vol.  iii.  pp.  412-413). 

2  It  is  a  proof  of  Luther's  great  admiration  for  Hus  that  when  sending  a 
wedding-present  to  his  friend  Nicholas  Specht  he  chose  a  portrait  of  "  the 
saintly  John  Hus."  (Letter  to  Nicholas  Specht,  December  12,  1538— The 
Letters  of  Martin  Luther.     Selected  and  translated  by  Margaret  A.  Currie.) 

T 


\/ 


290  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Hus's  countrymen  have  never  taken  much  interest  in  these 
questions.  To  them  he  has  always  been  a  fearless  enemy  of 
simony,  profligacy,  and  the  unlimited  power  of  the  clergy,  and 
a  brave  champion  of  his  country  and  its  nationality.  To 
quote  words  I  wrote  more  than  ten  years  ago: x  "  If  neglecting 
for  a  moment  the  minutiae  of  mediaeval  theological  contro- 
versy, we  consider  as  a  martyr  that  man  who  willingly  sacrifices 
his  individual  life  for  what  he  firmly  believes  to  be  the  good  of 
humanity  at  large,  who  '  takes  the  world's  life  on  him  and  his 

'I own  lays  down,'  then  assuredly  there  is  no  truer  martyr  in  the 

'{world's  annals  than  John  of  Husinec." 

Very  different  from  the  judgment  which  should  be  passed 
on  the  attitude  of  the  council  with  regard  to  Hus  is  that  which 
we  must  pass  on  Sigismund.  The  council  had  made  no  promise 
of  safety  to  Hus,  and  was  acting  in  accordance  with  the  teach- 
ing of  the  church  when  it  urged  Sigismund  not  to  keep  faith 
with  a  heretic.  Sigismund,  on  the  other  hand,  had  in  the 
most  formal  and  solemn  way  assured  Hus  that  he  would  be 
allowed  to  safely  proceed  to  Constance,  to  be  heard  there 
freely,  and  whatever  sentence  should  be  passed  on  him,  to 
return  unharmed  to  Bohemia.2  It  is  difficult  to  conceive 
baser  treachery  than  that  of  Sigismund  with  regard  to  Hus.  I 
must  refer  the  reader  to  an  earlier  chapter  of  this  book  3  for  the 
motives  that  induced  Sigismund  to  entice  Hus  to  Constance, 
whence — this  the  King  of  Hungary  had  from  the  first  decided 
— he  was  never  to  return  to  his  own  country.  Yet  Sigismund's 
conduct  has  found  defenders,  and  not  only  among  the  extreme 
adherents  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  One  of  Sigismund's 
strongest  partisans  indeed  does  not,  or  did  not,  belong  to  any 
Christian  community.  It  is  stated  that  Sigismund,  as  a 
member  of  the  Roman  Church,  was  obliged  to  obey  its  com- 

1  A  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  p.  141. 

"The  distinguished  Roman  Catholic  priest,  Dr.  Lenz,  whom  I  have 
repeatedly  quoted,  writes:  "  Sigismund  broke  his  word  by  not  handing  over 
Hus  to  the  King  of  Bohemia  after  he  had  been  condemned.  He  was  not 
justified  in  carrying  out  the  sentence  of  the  council  on  the  unhappy  master." 

*  See  Chapter  VI. 


THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  HUS  291 

imand  not  to  keep  faith  with  a  heretic,  and  that  he  had  even 
I  exceeded  his  powers  by  granting  a  safe-conduct  to  Hus.  This 
argument  might  have  had  some  force  at  other  periods  of  the 
history  of  the  church,  but  at  this  one  it  certainly  had  none. 
Personal  violence  had  been  used  against  Pope  Boniface  VIII. 
and  more  recently  a  pope  had  been  besieged  at  his  castle  of 
Avignon.  Sigismund  himself  had  imprisoned  Pope  John 
XXIII.  Even  among  those  who  were  faithful  believers  in  the 
teaching  of  Rome,  the  popes  and  prelates  had  at  that  time 
fallen  into  disesteem  and  even  contempt.  Sigismund  would 
certainly  not  have  hesitated  to  ignore  the  demands  of  Pope 
John  XXIII.,  and  afterwards  of  the  council  with  regard  to  Hus, 
had  he  thought  it  in  his  interest  to  do  so.  It  is  true  that  he 
shielded  himself  by  invoking  the  authority  of  the  church  when 
his  treachery  caused  general  indignation  in  Bohemia.  It  has 
also  been  stated  that  the  safe-conduct  granted  by  Sigismund 
only  assured  the  safe  arrival  of  Hus  at  Constance.  This,  how- 
ever, is  in  direct  contradiction  with  the  wording  of  the  safe- 
conduct  as  well  as  with  the  fact  that  Hus  started  from 
Prague  without  this  document.  It  has  also  been  argued  in 
defence  of  Sigismund  that,  if  the  safe-conduct  given  to  Hus 
had  guaranteed  his  immunity,  his  trial  would  have  been 
illusory,  as  no  punishment  could  have  been  inflicted.  This 
argument  is  also  founded  on  a  misconception.  Had  the  safe- 
conduct  not  been  violated,  Hus  would  have  been  conducted 
back  to  his  country,  and  punished  according  to  the  decision  of 
his  sovereign,  King  Venceslas  of  Bohemia.  That  this  by  no 
means  necessarily  meant  immunity  will  be  clearly  understood 
by  all  who  remember  that  Venceslas  had  once  before 
threatened  Hus  with  death  at  the  stake. 

The  contemporaries  of  Sigismund,  and  the  Bohemians  in 
particular,  were  almost  unanimous  in  condemning  Sigismund 's 
misdeed.  When  the  news  of  the  execution  of  Hus  reached  the 
Bohemian  court,  King  Venceslas  said:  'They  ought  not  to 
have  treated  him  in  this  manner  as  he  had  a  safe-conduct." 


2Q2  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

The  king  also  expressed  great  indignation  at  the  behaviour  of 
the  Bohemian  priests,  who  by  their  false  accusations  and 
depositions  had  greatly  contributed  to  the  condemnation  of 
Hus.1  The  Bohemian  people  never  forgave  Sigismund,  "  the 
dragon  of  the  apocalypse,"  as  they  called  him,  his  treachery, 
and  this  feeling  contributed  largely  to  the  intense  bitterness 
and  cruelty  of  the  Hussite  wars. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  during  the  last  painful  months  of 
his  life  Hus  had  little  time  for  literary  activity.  Except  a  few 
minor  treatises,  there  belong  to  this  period  only  a  large  number 
of  letters.  I  have  already  copiously,  though  not,  I  think,  in 
consideration  of  their  value,  too  copiously  quoted  these  letters. 

1  Sctiptores  rcrum  Bohemicarum,  ed.  Palacky,  vol.  iii.  pp.  20-21. 


CHAPTER  IX 

HUS   AS   A   BOHEMIAN   PATRIOT 

While  the  great  part  that  Hus  played  as  a  church-reformer  is  I 
widely  known,  his  great  importance  as  a  Bohemian  patriot  is 
almost  unknown  beyond  the  borders  of  his  native  land.  Many 
Bohemians  who  are  firm  adherents  of  the  Roman  Church  there- 
fore feel  great  sympathy  for  Hus,  admiring  not  only  his  saintly 
character,  but  also  his  devotion  to  his  country  and  its 
language,  to  the  development  of  which  he  so  largely  contri- 
buted. As  has  already  been  mentioned,  Husinec,  the  birth- 
place of  the  great  church-reformer,  lies  in  a  district  in  Western 
Bohemia  which  is  near  the  Bavarian  frontier  and  where  the 
German  nationality  marches  with  the  Bohemian  one.  No 
doubt,  in  consequence  of  this  proximity,  the  national  feeling  is 
very  strongly  developed  in  this  part  of  the  country.  Though 
little  is  known  of  his  early  youth,  it  is  certain  that  Hus  was 
brought  up  as  a  strong  Bohemian  patriot.  Though  so  saintly 
a  man  as  Hus  was  incapable  of  hatred  of  Germans  or  of  men  of 
any  country,  the  injustice  of  the  system  which  placed  in  the 
hands  of  foreigners — mostly  men  hostile  to  the  Bohemian 
nation — most  of  the  dignities  of  the  university  and  the  largest 
part  of  the  ecclesiastical  patronage,  filled  him  with  great  and 
justifiable  indignation.  In  one  of  his  earliest  sermons,  which 
has  already  been  mentioned,1  Hus  spoke  very  strongly  on  the 
humiliating  and  subordinate  position  of  the  Bohemians  in 
their  own  country.  Like  the  Bohemian  patriots  of  all  periods 
— for  they  have  retained  this  characteristic  up  to  the  present 
day — Hus  was  devotedly  attached  to  the  national  language. 
The  constant  contact  with  Germany  and  the  fact  that  many 

1  See  p.  73. 
293 


294  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Bohemians,  particularly  nobles,  married  German  wives, 
always  endangered  the  purity  of  the  Bohemian  language,  and 
furthered  the  introduction  of  many  German  words.  Skilfully 
seeking  an  analogy  in  the  records  of  the  Old  Testament,  Hus 
has  enlarged  on  this  subject  in  one  of  his  most  characteristic 
sermons.1  "  It  is  written,"  he  says,  "  in  the  book  of  the  good 
Nehemiah :  2  '  I  saw  Jews  that  had  married  wives  of  Ashdod, 
of  Ammon,  and  of  Moab :  and  their  children  spake  half  in  the 
speech  of  Ashdod,  and  could  not  speak  in  the  Jews  language, 
but  according  to  the  language  of  each  people.  And  I  con- 
tended with  them,  and  cursed  them,  and  smote  certain  of  them, 
and  beheaded  some.  I  cursed  them  in  the  name  of  God,  say- 
ing, Ye  shall  not  give  your  daughters  unto  their  sons,  nor 
take  their  daughters  unto  your  sons,  or  for  yourselves.  I 
said:  Did  not  Solomon  King  of  Israel  sin  by  these  things? 
yet  among  many  nations  was  there  no  king  like  him,  who  was 
beloved  of  his  God,  and  God  made  him  king  over  all  Israel: 
nevertheless  even  him  did  outlandish  women  cause  to  sin. 
Shall  we  then  being  disobedient  commit  a  mortal  sin,  and 
transgressing  against  our  God  marry  strange  wives?  ' 

"  You  see  then  that  this  good  priest  (Nehemiah)  forbade  the 
Jews  to  marry  heathen  women,  even  if  they  accepted  their 
faith,  and  that  for  two  reasons:  firstly,  that  these  women 
should  not  lead  them  away  from  God  and  to  idols,  as  they  led 
Solomon,  that  king  beloved  of  God  and  wise;  secondly,  that 
the  Hebrew  language  should  not  perish.  Thus  he  (Nehemiah) 
says  that  he  heard  children  who  knew  not  even  Hebrew,  but 
spoke  in  a  half-heathen  speech.  And  therefore  he  smote  them 
badly,  whipped  them,  and  the  men  he  slew.  Thus  also  should 
the  princes,  lords,  knights,  patricians,  citizens  prevent  their 
people  from  committing  unchastity,  and  particularly  adultery. 

1  Vyklad  desateta  Boziho  prikazanie  (Exposition  of  God's  Ten  Com- 
mandments), Erben's  edition  of  Hus's  Bohemian  works,  vol.  i.  chap.  iv. 
pp.  132-133. 

2  Nehemiah,  chapter  xiii.  23-27.  Hus's  quotation  differs  slightly  from 
the  English  version  of  the  gospel. 


HUS  AS  A  BOHEMIAN  PATRIOT  295 

They  should  not  permit  this,  but  should  whip  them  and  beat 
them — I  will  not  say  slay  them,  though  this  holy  man  beheaded 
them;  for  in  later  times  Christ  the  merciful  king  would  not 
allow  the  adultress  to  be  immediately  sentenced  to  death. 
Thus  also  should  we  behave  that  the  Bohemian  language 
perish  not.  If  a  Bohemian  marries  a  German,  the  children 
must  immediately  learn  Bohemian  and  not  divide  their  speech 
in  two  (speak  partly  Bohemian,  partly  German).  For  this 
division  causes  but  jealousy,  dissension,  anger,  and  quarrels. 
Therefore  did  the  Emperor  Charles,  King  of  Bohemia,  of  holy 
memory,  order  the  citizens  of  Prague  to  teach  their  children 
Bohemian,  to  speak  it,  and  to  plead  at  law  in  Bohemian  in 
the  town  hall,  which  the  Germans  call  '  Rothaus.'  And  just 
as  Nehemiah,  when  he  heard  Jewish  children  speaking  partly 
in  the  speech  of  Ashdod,  and  not  knowing  Hebrew  (well), 
whipped  them  and  beat  them,  thus  would  those  citizens  of 
Prague  deserve  a  whipping,  as  well  as  those  other  Bohemians 
whose  speech  is  half  Bohemian  and  half  German — men  who 
use  such  German  words  as  Hantuch,  Knedlik,  Shorz,  Hausz- 
knecht.1  And  who  can  describe  how  greatly  they  have 
confused  (rendered  unintelligible)  the  Bohemian  language? 
Therefore  a  true  Bohemian  who  listens  to  them,  and  hears 
them  speak,  understands  not  what  they  say.  Thence  spring 
ill  -.will,  envy,  dissensions,  quarrels,  and  dishonour  to 
Bohemia." 

This  curious  passage  shows  how  strongly  developed  the 
feeling  of  racial  antipathy  between  Bohemians  and  Germans 
was  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century.  How  fully  Hus 
felt  with  his  countrymen  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  so  pious 
and  kind-hearted  a  man  did  not  hesitate,  following  the  example 
of  the  Hebrew  prophet,  to  place  the  marrying  of  a  foreign  wife 

1  I  have  preserved£Hus's  spelling  of  the  one  or  two  German  words  given 
above.  The  Bohemian  language  is  so  little  known  in  England  that  it  would 
be  useless  to  translate  this  passage  in  full.  Hus  gives  a  list  of  Bohemian 
words,  and  adds  the  corrupted  word  derived  from  the  German  which  had 
taken  its  place  in  popular  parlance. 


296  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

on  the  same  level  as  the  most  heinous  sins.  How  little  the 
popular  feeling  among  the  Bohemians  has  changed  in  the 
period  of  nearly  five  centuries  that  divides  us  from  the  time  of 
Hus  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  almost  all  political  interest  in 
Bohemia  in  the  present  day  centres  in  the  "  question  of 
languages,"  the  Sprachenfrage,  as  the  Germans  call  it. 

Hus's  endeavours  to  strengthen  and  develop  his  native 
language  were,  however,  by  no  means  limited  to  the  purely 
negative  task  of  opposing  the  encroachments  of  the  German 
tongue.  He  well  knew  that  his  own  language,  to  become 
exclusively  the  language  of  the  state  and  of  the  scholars  of 
Bohemia,  required  development  and  improvement  in  many 
respects;  even  as  regards  such  elementary  matters  as  ortho- 
graphy great  disorder  prevailed;  no  generally  accepted  rules 
existed.  In  the  scanty  written  documents  and  in  the  language 
of  the  people  there  still  remained  many  traces  of  the  different 
dialects  from  which  the  Bohemian  language  originally  sprang. 
Hus  first  attempted  to  establish  a  universally  recognised 
written  language  for  the  whole  extensive  district — including 
Moravia  and  Silesia  as  well  as  Bohemia  proper — in  which  the 
Bohemian  language  is  spoken.  He  first  attempted  a  task  in 
which  the  revivers  of  the  Bohemian  tongue  in  the  nineteenth 
century  were  finally  and  definitely  successful.1  These  men 
were  indeed  greatly  indebted  to  Hus,  as  well  as  later  to  the 
writers  of  the  Bohemian  brotherhood.  While  residing  at 
Prague  Hus  had  already  directed  his  attention  to  the  im- 
provement of  his  native  language.  The  result  of  these  studies 
was  his  Orthographia  Bohemica,  which  probably  dates  from  the 
year  141 1.2  The  Bohemians  had,  in  distinction  from  many 
other  Slavic  races,  adopted  the  Latin  characters,  which  are 
inadequate  to  render  many  sounds  peculiar  to  Slavic  speech. 
Many   different   attempts   had   been   made   to   obviate   this 

1  See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature. 

2Flajshans,   Literami  cinnost   Mistra   Jana   Husi   (Literary  Activity  of 
Master  John  Hus),  pp.  74"75- 


HUS  AS  A  BOHEMIAN  PATRIOT  297 

"  anarchy  of  spelling  " — as  Dr.  Flajshans  calls  it — which 
resulted  from  this  inability.  Hus,  however,  was  the  first  who, 
in  his  work  that  has  just  been  mentioned,  introduced  the 
diacritic  signs  which  in  a  modified  form  are  still  used  in  the 
Bohemian  language.  During  the  period  in  which  he  studied 
and  afterwards  lectured  at  the  university  Hus  had  generally 
spoken  and  written  in  Latin.  When  he  was  an  exile,  no 
longer  in  close  contact  with  his  university,  but  had,  on  the 
other  hand,  many  opportunities  of  hearing  the  common  talk  of 
the  country  people  to  whom  he  preached,  he  devoted  yet  more 
attention  to  his  native  language.  The  earlier  Bohemian 
writers,  even  Stitny,  had  written  in  a  somewhat  pedantic 
fashion  similar  to  that  of  the  ponderous  writers  of  mediaeval 
Latin.  Hus,  as  he  himself  tells  *  us,  formed  his  style  on  the 
common  speech  of  the  people,  which  he  ennobled  and  raised 
to  the  rank  of  a  language  adapted  to  the  expression  of  theo- 
logical and  philosophical  thought,  though  the  earlier  merits  of 
Stitny  in  this  respect  must  not  be  overlooked.  That  Hus, 
who  shared  the  great  devotion  to  the  holy  gospel  which  is  a 
characteristic  of  all  Bohemian  church-reformers,  should  have 
given  much  time  and  study  to  the  Scriptures  is  but  natural. 
He  endeavoured  to  make  the  Bible  more  accessible  to  his; 
countrymen,  and  this  may  be  considered  as  one  of  the  causes 
why  he  incurred  the  intense  hatred  of  the  opulent  Bohemian 
clergy.  It  appears,  though  the  matter  is  somewhat  obscure,5 
that,  as  early  as  the  second  half  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
parts  of  the  Bible  had  been  translated  into  Bohemian  by 
various  writers,  and  that  these  parts  had  been  collected  and 
joined  together  about  the  year  141  o.  These  translations 
were,  however,  of  very  unequal  value;   some  were  written  in 

1  "  Let  him  who  wishes  to  read  (my  works)  know  that  I  write  in  the 
manner  in  which  I  am  in  the  habit  of  speaking.  ...  I  beg  every  one  who 
shall  write  to  write  not  otherwise  than  I  have  written.  If  I  have  made  a 
mistake  about  a  letter  or  omitted  a  syllable  or  a  word,  correct  it.  .  .  .  Many, 
thinking  they  understand  better,  efface  that  which  was  well  written  and 
write  (something)  wrong  instead."     (Introduction  to  Postilla,  ed.  Flajshans.) 

-  Flajshans,  Misty  Jan  Has,  p.  276. 


298  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

the  rough  Bohemian  in  use  about  the  year  1350,  others  in  the 
more  refined  language  of  the  fifteenth  century.  Some  teemed 
with  mistakes  of  the  grossest  description;  others  bore  witness 
to  the  learning  of  the  masters  of  the  university.  Of  these 
some,  including  Hus,  were  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew 
'language.1  Hus  undertook  the  difficult  task  of  revising  and 
correcting  the  already  existent  translations  of  the  Bible,  and 
it  may  be  said  that  it  was  mainly  through  him  that  the  Scrip- 
tures became  more  accessible  to  the  Bohemian  people.2 

In  close  connection  with  Hus's  striving  to  render  his 
countrymen  more  familiar  with  the  sacred  documents  which 
\form  the  basis  of  Christianity,  reference  should  be  made  to 
jhis  endeavours  to  facilitate  the  participation  of  laymen  in  the 
religious  rites,  and  more  especially  in  church-song,  which  had 
'gradually  become  an  exclusive  privilege  of  the  clergy.  This 
part  of  the  activity  of  Hus  had,  up  to  recent  times,  been 
entirely  neglected,  and  only  recently  scholars  of  the  University 
of  Prague  have  thrown  some  light  on  matters  that  were 
formerly  almost  unknown.3  In  consequence  of  the  ever- 
increasing  claims  of  the  clergy  to  superiority  over  laymen,  the 
custom — no  doubt  general  in  the  time  of  the  primitive  church 
— that  the  congregation  should  join  in  the  singing  during 
religious  services  had  gradually  been  abandoned.  This  caused 
great  resentment  among  the  people,  particularly  among  the 
Bohemians,  with  whom  a  taste  for  music  is  innate.  The  early 
Bohemian  church-reformers,  Milic  in  particular,  were  deeply 
interested  in  this  matter,  and  Hus  here  walked  completely  in 
their  footsteps.  We  find  here,  as  in  so  many  other  cases, 
close  connection  between  Hus  and  his  forerunners,  while  as 

1  Hus's  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  language  is  proved  by  passages  in 
the  Orthographia  Bohemica  which  has  just  been  mentioned — and  in  other 
of  his  works. 

*  Though  so  much  study  has  recently  been  devoted  to  Hus  by  Bohemian 
scholars,  his  work  as  a  translator  and  editor  of  Scripture  requires  further 
research. 

3 1  must  here  acknowledge  my  great  indebtedness  to  Dr.  Nejedly,  whose 
work,  Pocatky  Husitskeho  zpevn  (the  beginnings  of  Hussite  song)  is  most 
valuable. 


HUS  AS  A  BOHEMIAN  PATRIOT  299 

regards  music  and  art  generally  the  somewhat  puritanic 
views  of  Wycliffe  were  directly  antagonistic  to  those  of  the 
Bohemians.  This,  as  Dr.  Nejedly  writes,  is  a  matter  by  no 
means  devoid  of  importance  if  we  consider  the  arguments  of 
those  who  attempted  to  prove  that  Hus  was  a  mere  copyist 
and  imitator  of  Wycliffe.  The  theories  on  which  the  two 
opponents  of  Rome  agreed  were  mainly  common  property  of  all 
mediaeval  opponents  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  while  the  natures 
and  characters  of  Hus  and  Wycliffe  were  in  most  respects 
different,  even  antagonistic.  The  somewhat  pedantic  and 
matter-of-fact  nature  of  Wycliffe,  devoid  of  artistic  instincts, 
contrasts  absolutely  with  the  enthusiastic  and  fanciful  char- 
acter of  Hus,  who  fully  possessed  the  fondness  for  vocal  and 
instrumental  music  that  is  so  characteristic  of  his  countrymen. 
Hus  has  in  his  works  frequently  expounded  his  views  with 
regard  to  singing  in  church.  He  declares  that  song  is  one  of 
the  three  forms  of  devotion  which  constitute  the  religious 
services  of  the  heavenly  temple  in  our  home  (heaven).  The 
religious  services  of  the  temples  of  the  soul  and  the  body 
should  conform  to  this.  The  song  of  those  who  dwell  in  our 
celestial  home  consists  of  praise  of  God  and  of  thanksgiving.1 
Elsewhere  Hus  mentions  that  Christ  sang  a  hymn  of  thanks- 
giving when  He  proceeded  with  His  disciples  to  the  Mount  of 
Olives.2  In  yet  another  passage  of  his  writings  he  advised  the 
mournful  to  expel  the  plague  of  sorrow  from  their  hearts  by 
the  sweetness  of  song.3  Many  other  passages  could  be  quoted 
to  prove  the  importance  which  Hus  attached  to  devotional 
music.     Hus's  appointment  to  the  Bethlehem  chapel  afforded 

1  "  Sunt  tria  pertinentia  ad  officium  templi  coelestis  in  patria,  quibus 
debet  se  conformare  officium  templi  in  anima  et  officium  templi  corporalis 
extra  in  materia,  scilicet  cantus,  cultus  et  visio  vultus.  Cantus  templi 
coelestis  habitatorum  in  patria  consistit  in  divina  laude  et  gratiarum  actione." 
Explicatio  in  psalmum  cxviii.     (Hus  Opera,  1715,  vol.  ii.  p.  456.) 

2 "  Et  hymno  dicto — id  est  gratiarum  actione  Deo — exierunt  in  montem 
Oliveti."  Passio  Christi  ex  quatuor  evangelistis  (Hus  Opera,  171 5,  vol.  ii. 
p.  17). 

3 "  Crebra  psalmodiae  dulcedine  nocivam  tristitiae  pestem  de  corde 
pellat."     Explicatio  in  epistola  Jacobi  {Hus  Opera,  171 5,  vol.  ii.  p.  230). 


300  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

him  the  desired  opportunity.  The  chapel  soon  became 
famed  for  its  singing.  It  had,  indeed,  originally  been  built  for 
preaching,  particularly  in  the  national  language,  and  the 
preaching  continued  mainly  to  attract  the  people,  as  is  natural, 
if  we  consider  the  unrivalled  eloquence  of  Hus.  Yet  the  sing- 
ing of  hymns  by  the  congregation  soon  became  a  very  im- 
portant feature.  In  his  interesting  work  Dr.  Nejedly  thus 
describes  the  services  in  the  Bethlehem  chapel  at  this  period: 
"  The  people  assembled  to  hear  Hus's  sermons,  which  in- 
spired with  enthusiasm  all  classes  represented  in  the  congrega- 
tion. All  were  greatly  moved  when  the  sermon  ended,  and 
then  a  low  mass  was  said.  The  people  had  previously  already 
been  in  the  habit  of  singing  Hospodine  pomiluj  ny  2  (the  Lord 
have  mercy  on  us)  and  Buoh  vsemohuci  (Almighty  God)  after 
the  sermons,  and  now  they  did  so  also  after  the  sermons  of 
Hus.  Psychologically  the  enthusiastic  disposition  of  the 
crowd  required  some  outlet ;  it  could  find  no  better  one  than  in 
song.  Only  a  low  mass  was  permitted  in  the  chapel  after  the 
sermon,  and  this  did  not  interfere  with  the  singing  and  indeed 
rather  helped  it.  We  can,  therefore,  consider  these  regulations 
of  the  Bethlehem  chapel  as  being  largely  the  reason  why  the 
people  sang  there  more  than  elsewhere,  and  why  popular  sing- 
ing in  churches  sprang  from  there.  Hus  well  understood  the 
disposition  of  the  crowds  who  listened  to  his  sermons  and 
helped  them  to  give  vent  to  it  in  that  manner  which  is  most 
natural  to  an  emotional  multitude,  that  is  to  say,  by  means  of 
song.  Hus's  delight  in  church  song,  even  though  it  had  a 
,  liturgic  2  character,  had  a  strong  influence  on  the  development 
iof  devotional  music  of  a  popular  character."  The  then 
established  system  of  singing  in  churches,  the  "  liturgic  "  one, 
as  Dr.  Nejedly  calls  it,  was  very  faulty.  Hus  always  declared 
himself   its    determined    enemy.     The    total    reform    of   the 

1  See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  p.  8. 

*  Dr.  Nejedly  describes  as  the  "  liturgic  "  system  that  which  allowed  only 
priests,  and  men  in  minor  orders,  to  sing  in  church  while  the  rest  of  the 
congregation  remained  silent. 


HUS  AS  A  BOHEMIAN  PATRIOT  301 

Bohemian  Church — the  cause  for  which  Hus  lived  and  died — 
was  to  include  a  reform  of  church-song  also.  The  part  which 
the  congregation  was  allowed  to  take  in  the  singing  at  religious 
services  had,  through  the  influence  of  the  priesthood — desirous 
here  also  to  accentuate  the  difference  between  the  clergy  and 
the  laity — become  very  insignificant.  The  singers — monks,  or 
ecclesiastics  who  had  only  received  the  minor  orders — showed 
a  complete  want  of  reverence,  and  mechanically  accomplished 
their  duties  in  a  negligent  manner  that  deeply  offended  so 
pious  a  Christian  as  was  Hus.  The  priests,  and  particularly 
the  friars,  deacons,  and  acolytes  who  were  paid  for  their  ser- 
vices, behaved  in  a  most  unseemly  manner,  roving  about  the 
church  and  scoffing  at  the  congregation.  Some  sang  so 
falsely  that  they  were  derided  by  the  congregation,  and  a 
Bohemian  audience  is  always  critical  with  regard  to  music. 
Their  principal  fault  was,  however,  the  indecent  hurry  with 
which  they  despatched  their  duties  as  singers.  Hus  blames 
this  abuse  in  quaint  words:  "  Such  a  (singer),"  he  writes,1 
"  grinds  his  words  without  using  his  lips  or  teeth,  and  they 
seem  as  the  sound  of  a'  millstone,  which  thunders  out :  tr,  tr, 
tr!  "  It  was  Hus's  endeavour  to  remedy  such  abuses  and  to 
introduce  in  his  chapel  "  quiet  song  and  prayer  that  should  be 
pleasing  both  to  the  learned  and  to  the  simple." 

It  was  a  very  important  and  by  no  means  easy  task  that 
Hus  undertook  when  he  attempted  to  replace  the  Latin  sing- 
ing in  his  chapel  by  songs  in  the  national  language.  With  the 
exception  of  the  one  or  two  hymns  that  have  already  been 
mentioned,  there  then  existed  only  secular  songs  in  the 
Bohemian  language,  and  these  had  frequently  a  frivolous  and 
even  obscene  character.  Hus,  who  thoroughly  understood 
his  countrymen,  knew  that  singing  of  some  sort  is  to  them  a 
necessity.  He,  therefore — like  some  more  recent  church- 
reformers — endeavoured  to  expel  the  objectionable  songs  that 

1  Vyklad  modlitby  pane  (Exposition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer),  chap,  lxxxhi. ; 
Erben  edition,  i.  p.  307. 


302  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

were  popular,  and  replace  them  by  others  that  were  of  a  pious 
character.  He  began  by  translating  into  Bohemian  some  of 
the  Latin  hymns  which  the  people  were  in  the  habit  of  hearing, 
though  of  course  without  understanding  them.  As  it  had 
already  proved  to  be  possible  to  introduce  the  native  language 
into  the  pulpit,  Hus  resolved  to  render  the  singing  of  Bohemian 
hymns  in  the  churches  general.  Here,  as  in  all  his  efforts  to 
further  church-reform,  Hus  was  confronted  by  the  violent 
hostility  of  the  Bohemian  prelacy.  The  fact  that,  as  hymns 
were  now  sung  in  the  national  language,  women  were  able  to 
take  part  in  the  singing  and  were  permitted  to  do  so,  met  with 
great  opposition  and  derision  on  the  part  of  the  enemies  of 
church-reform.  They  were  all  the  more  exasperated  because 
the  Bohemian  women  from  Queen  Sophia  downward  had  from 
the  first  been  fervent  adherents  of  Hus.  The  evil  life  of  the 
priests  was  a  cause  of  great  resentment  to  the  women  of 
Bohemia.  As  on  so  many  other  occasions,  the  monk  Stephen 
of  Dolein  is  prominent  among  those  who  attacked  the  church- 
reformers.  He  accused  them  of  having,  contrary  to  the 
regulations  of  the  church,  sung  masses  and  hymns  together 
with  women  in  the  common  Bohemian  language.1 

Hus  was  very  indignant  at  this  opposition.  "  Ha,  ha,"  he 
writes,2  "  where  are  those  slanderers  and  babblers  who  en- 
deavour to  prevent  the  Bohemian  language  from  being 
honoured?  "  To  encourage  singing  in  the  native  language 
Hus  established  at  the  Bethlehem  chapel  what  Dr.  Nejedly 
calls  a  "  school  "  in  which  the  people  were  taught  the  new 
devotional  songs  in  their  own  language.  There  was,  however, 
at  first  a  great  scarcity  of  such  songs.     Only  four  Bohemian 

1  "  Et  iterum  recenti  confictione  contra  ritum  ecclesiae  junctis  vobis 
mulieribus  et  Begutis  (i.e.  beguines)  vestris  in  choro  cantatis  cum  eisdem  tarn 
missas,  quam  alias  cantilenas  in  vulgari  Bohemico,  quae  societas  scripturis 
testantibus  clericis  non  convenit.  Utinam  caveretis  earundem  societatem 
vel  in  thoro!  "  (Stephanus  Dolanensis  epistola  ad  Husitas,  Pez  Thesaurus 
Anecdotorum  Novissimus,  vol.  iv.  part  2,  p.  590.)  The  engrained  coarseness 
of  the  monk  Stephen  is  apparent  here  also. 

1  Exposition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  (Erben's  edition,  vol.  i.  p.  313). 


HUS  AS  A  BOHEMIAN  PATRIOT  303 

hymns,  among  them  the  Hospodinc  pomiluj  ny — one  of  the 
oldest  documents  in  the  Bohemian  language — had  hitherto 
been  recognised  by  the  Church  of  Rome.  Through  Hus's 
influence,  however,  other  ancient  Bohemian  hymns  began  to 
be  sung  in  churches,  and  new  ones  were  composed,  or  adapted 
from  the  Latin.  In  consequence  of  the  generally  prevailing 
religious  enthusiasm,  new  hymns — often  the  work  of  unknown 
writers — suddenly  appeared  in  Bohemia,  and  were,  after  a 
short  time,  sung  in  all  parts  of  the  country.  This  was  yet 
more  the  case  after  the  death  of  Hus,  and  it  is  only  then  that 
we  meet  with  the  famous  Hussite  songs,  of  which  the  famed 
"  All  ye  warriors  of  God  "Ms  the  prototype,  which  partook 
both  of  the  character  of  a  hymn  and  of  that  of  a  war-song. 
Many  of  these  hymns,  however,  became  known  during  the 
life  of  Hus,  and  it  would  be  very  interesting  to  inquire  as  to 
what  part  Hus  himself  played  as  a  writer  of  hymns.  This  is 
still  a  matter  of  controversy,  and  Dr.  Nejedly,  our  principal 
authority  on  the  subject,  refuses  to  express  a  final  opinion. 
Many  of  the  early  hymns  are  the  work  of  unknown  writers, 
and  a  large  number  of  these  were  attributed  to  Hus,  particu- 
larly in  the  hymn-books  of  the  community  of  the  Bohemian 
brethren,2  who  considered  themselves  the  true  disciples  and 
successors  of  Hus.  Brother  Blahoslav,3  born  in  1523,  mentions 
as  undoubted  works  of  Hus  only  two  hymns,  those  entitled, 
"  Jesus  Christ,  bountiful  Lord "  and  "  O  living  bread  of 
angels."  Later  writers  attributed  to  Hus  an  ever-increasing 
number  of  hymns.  There  is  great  probability  that  at  least  six 
of  these  devotional  songs  are  genuine  works  of  Hus.  Hus's 
love  of  singing  did  not  forsake  him  to  the  last.  As  previously 
mentioned,  it  was  while  singing  a  hymn  that  he  ended  his  life 
in  the  flames. 

1  See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  p.  151.  Writing  for  English 
readers  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  give  the  Bohemian  names  of  these 
hymns. 

2  See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  p.  249. 
*  Ibid.  pp.  232-241. 


304  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Hus's  patriotic  efforts  to  increase  the  power  and  import- 
ance of  his  country  induced  him  to  endeavour,  as  far  as 
circumstances  permitted,  to  establish  relations  with  foreign 
countries.  As  regards  this  subject,  also,  our  materials  are 
scant.  The  racial  hatred  between  Slav  and  Teuton  rendered 
amicable  intercourse  with  Germany  impossible  at  Hus's  time, 
though  a  century  later  the  German  [reformation  undoubtedly 
caused  religious  sympathy  for  a  time  to  prevail  over  racial 
antipathy.  The  Bohemians  were,  on  the  other  hand,  greatly 
influenced  and  attracted  by  the  Wyclifhte  movement  in 
England.  The  fact  that  King  Richard  II.  had  married  a 
Bohemian  princess,  the  daughter  of  Charles  IV.,  undoubtedly 
led  to  considerable  intercourse  between  England  and  Bohemia. 
Though  the  influence  of  Wycliffe  on  Hus  was  not  so  great,  and 
particularly  not  so  exclusive,  as  has  recently  been  affirmed, 
its  existence  cannot  be  denied.  Hus's  reference  to  "  blessed 
England  "  when  informing  the  Bethlehem  congregation  of  the 
message  of  Richard  Wiche  has  already  been  mentioned  here. 
There  is  also  no  reason  to  doubt  the  assertion  of  a  recent 
Bohemian  writer  *  that  Hus  wrote  to  Lord  Cobham  begging 
him  to  send  him  copies  of  Wycliffe's  writings.2 

The  purely  theological  intercourse  between  England  and 
Bohemia  led  to  no  political  consequences,  even  at  a  period 
when  religious  and  political  controversy  were  more  closely 
connected  than  is  the  case  at  the  present  day.  Hus's  relations 
with  the  Slavic  countries  had,  on  the  other  hand,  political 
results,  which  influenced  even  the  period  subsequent  to  the 
death  of  the  Bohemian  reformer.  The  prominent  part  played 
in  the  Hussite  wars  by  the  Poles  and  particularly  by  the 
princes  of  the  reigning  family  of  Poland  is  foreshadowed  by  the 
hitherto  little  known  relations  which  Hus  established  with 

1  Dr.  Nedoma,  A  Hussite  codex  of  Star  a  Boleslav  [Alt  Bunzlau].  (Pro- 
ceedings of  the  Bohemian  Society  of  Sciences,  1891.) 

2  The  statement  is  confirmed  by  English  writers:  "  The  Lord  Cobham  is 
said  likewise  ...  at  the  desire  of  John  Huss  to  have  caused  all  Wiclif's 
works  to  be  written  out  and  to  be  dispersed  in  Bohemia."  (John  Lewis, 
The  Life  of  Dr.  John  Wiclif,  1820,  p.  247.) 


HUS  AS  A  BOHEMIAN  PATRIOT  305 

King  Vladislav  of  Poland.  The  Polish  king  was  then  engaged  in 
war  with  the  knights  of  the  Teutonic  order — one  of  the  many 
episodes  of  the  eternal  conflict  between  Slav  and  Teuton.  1 
Many  Bohemians,  among  them,  according  to  an  ancient 
tradition,  John  Zizka,  subsequently  the  hero  of  the  Hussite 
wars,  joined,  as  volunteers,  the  army  of  the  kindred  Polish 
nation.  The  war  was,  of  course,  watched  with  the  greatest 
interest  by  the  Bohemians.  In  1410,  the  King  of  Poland 
obtained  a  decisive  victory  at  Tannenberg  over  the  army  of 
the  Teutonic  order  which  broke  its  strength  for  all  times.  On 
receiving  the  news  of  the  great  victory,  Hus  addressed  to 
the  king  a  congratulatory  letter,  which  has  recently  been 
published l  and  is  of  the  greatest  interest.  According  to  Dr. 
Nedoma's  conjecture,  Ones  of  Hurka,  mentioned  in  this  letter, 
was  an  envoy  sent  by  the  King  of  Poland  to  Hus  to  inform 
him  of  the  great  victory.  We  have  evidence  that  King  Vladi- 
slav sent  messengers  of  victory  not  only  to  all  sovereigns,  but 
also  to  men  of  importance  in  Bohemia.2  It  is  a  proof  that  the 
fame  of  Hus  was  already  widely  spread  in  Slavic  countries 
that  such  a  messenger  should  have  been  sent  to  him  as  the 
leader  of  the  national  party  in  Bohemia.  The  members  of 
that  party  naturally  rejoiced  greatly  over  what  they  consider 
a  victory  of  the  Slavic  cause.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
Hus  here  refers  to  his  wish  to  meet  the  king  and  to  visit  Poland 
— no  doubt  in  the  interest  of  church-reform.  It  appears  from 
a  remark  of  the  Emperor  Sigismund,  previously  quoted,3  that 
that  movement  had  acquired  considerable  strength  in  Poland. 
This  planned  journey  of  Hus  was  hitherto  quite  unknown. 
Both  in  this  letter,  and  in  a  second  one  which  will  be  quoted 
presently,  Hus,  acting  truly  as  a  peacemaker,  entreats  the  I 
King  of  Poland  to  live  on  good  terms  with  Sigismund  of  Hun- 

1  By  Dr.  Nedoma  in  the  Proceedings  of  Bohemian  Society  of  Sciences  for 
1 89 1.  The  letter  also  formed  part  of  the  codex  of  Stara  Boleslav  which  has 
already  been  mentioned. 

2  Such  a  letter,  addressed  to  Lord  Henry  of  Rosenberg  is  published — in 
a  German  translation — by  Pubitschka.  (Chronologische  Geschichte  Bohmcns, 
vol.  vii.  p.  34.)  3  See  p.  259. 

U 


306  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

gary,  though  the  cautious  reference  to  his  arrogance  proves 
that  Hus  was  by  no  means  unacquainted  with  the  true  char- 
acter of  that  prince.  Hus  writes:  "  Greetings  and  thanks, 
peace  and  victory  from  God  the  Father  and  from  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ!  Most  illustrious  prince  and  magnificent  king! 
When  Ones  of  Hurka,  your  Majesty's  messenger  of  victory 
and  of  praiseworthy  agreement,1  brought  certain  news,  he 
gave  my  heart  such  joy  that  neither  can  my  pen  describe  it, 
nor  my  voice  express  it,  as  would  be  seemly.  I  know,  how- 
ever, most  Christian  king,  that  not  the  power  of  your  magnifi- 
cence, but  that  of  the  supreme  King,  the  peaceful  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  humiliated  the  proud  enemies  and  rivals  of  your  glory. 
He  powerfully  expelled  them  from  the  seat  of  glory  and  exalted 
the  humble;  therefore  should  both  (adversaries),  having  before 
their  eyes  the  power  of  the  peaceful  King,  tremble  and  in  their 
peril  invoke  His  aid,  and  know  that  there  is  no  victory  but 
through  Him,  whom  no  mortal  can  defeat  and  who  is  pleased 
to  grant  victory  to  the  humble,  and  because  of  their  humiliation 
finally  to  exalt  them.  He  (Jesus  Christ)  taught  us  this,  saying 
frequently:  '  All  who  exalt  themselves  shall  be  humiliated, 
and  those  who  humiliate  themselves  shall  be  exalted.'  Both 
things  have  been  fulfilled.  Where  are  now  the  two  swords  2  of 
the  enemies?  Verily  have  they  been  struck  down  by  those 
(swords)  by  which  they  endeavoured  to  terrify  the  humble. 
They  directed  the  two  (swords)  at  kindness  and  at  pride,  and 
behold  they  lost  many  thousands  struck  down  unexpectedly. 
Where  are  now  their  swords,  their  war  steeds,  their  mailed 
men,  their  warriors  in  whom  they  confided?  Where  their 
innumerable  florins  or  treasures?  Assuredly  everything 
failed  them.  Proud  men,  they  who  confided  not  in  Christ,  did 
not  believe  that  they  would  be  deceived.     Therefore,  most 

1  This  probably  refers  to  a  truce  between  the  Poles  and  Germans  imme- 
diately after  the  battle.     Peace  was  only  concluded  on  February  i,  141 1. 

2  On  the  eve  of  the  battle  the  grandmaster  of  the  Teutonic  order,  Conrad 
of  Juningen,  sent  in  derision  two  swords  to  the  Polish  camp,  implying  that 
the  Poles  were  insufficiently  armed. 


HUS  AS  A  BOHEMIAN  PATRIOT  307 

illustrious  prince,  wisely  bearing  this  in  your  mind,  adhere  to 
humility,  for  it  exalts.  Follow  the  example  of  the  peaceful 
King,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  strive  for  peace  with  that  illus- 
trious prince,  King  Sigismund,  and  should  he  in  his  arrogance 
raise  unjust  claims — may  God  avert  this! — let  your  Majesty 
preserve  the  moderation  of  humility,  lest  Christian  blood  be 
again  spilt,  and  great  harm  to  the  souls  befall.  But  I,  un- 
worthy servant  of  Christ,  with  the  whole  people,  will  not  cease 
humbly  to  invoke  the  grace  of  God  on  this  concord,  praying 
that  the  most  kind  Lord  may  deign  to  grant  it.  I  also,  O 
magnificent  king,  wish  from  the  depth  of  my  heart  to  behold 
you  in  person,  and  I  hope  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  will  deign 
to  grant  me  this,  if  He  knows  that  it  will  in  some  fashion  be  of 
advantage  to  your  Majesty  and  to  my  preaching.  May  the 
Almighty  God  deign  to  assist  your  Majesty  for  (the  sake  of) 
our  Saviour,  the  mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.     Amen." 

This  letter  is  undated,  but  we  may  consider  it  certain  that 
it  was  written  in  1410,  later  than  the  15th  of  July,  the  day  on 
which  the  battle  of  Tannenberg  was  fought.  On  February  1, 
141 1,  King  Vladislav  concluded  a  treaty  of  peace  with  the 
Teutonic  order.  His  principal  motive  was  that,  shortly  before, 
King  Sigismund  of  Hungary  had  attacked  Poland.  Hus  was 
therefore  not  successful  in  his  attempt  to  prevent  hostilities 
between  the  two  kings. 

The  only  other  letter  of  Hus  to  the  King  of  Poland  that  is 
known  was  written  two  years  later.  It  is  dated  June  10,  1412. 
It  is  closely  connected  with  the  previous  letter,  for  Hus  begins 
by  expressing  his  joy  over  the  re-establishment  of  peace 
between  the  King  and  Sigismund  of  Hungary.  Hus,  however, 
expresses  in  this  letter  more  clearly  than  in  the  former  one  his 
hopes  with  regard  to  church-reform.  He  lays  particular  stress 
on  the  suppression  of  simony,  which  he  very  truly  considered 
the  real  cause  of  the  depravation  of  the  clergy.  A  priest  who 
had  often  for  a  very  high  price  purchased  his  ecclesiastical 


308  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

dignity  by  no  means  felt  obliged  to  conform  to  rules  laid  down 
by  men  whom  he  no  doubt  despised  as  absurd  pietists  and 
fanatics.  Hus  firmly  believed  that  simony  was  the  principal 
source  of  the  evil  condition  of  the  church  in  his  time.  He 
writes  to  the  King  of  Poland:1  "The  grace  of  the  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  (assist  you)  to  rule  your  people  and  to  attain  a 
life  of  glory.  Most  serene  prince,  I  was  filled  with  great 
pleasure  when  I  heard  that  your  serene  Highness  had,  by  the 
will  of  the  Almighty  Lord,  come  to  an  agreement  with  that 
illustrious  prince,  King  Sigismund,  and  I  only  pray  with  the 
people  that  the  life  of  you  both  and  of  your  peoples  may 
continue  in  the  path  of  justice.  Therefore,  most  illustrious 
prince,  it  appears  most  necessary  in  the  interest  both  of  your 
Majesty  and  of  his  Highness  King  Sigismund  and  also  of  the 
other  princes  that  the  heresy  of  simony  be  removed  from  your 
dominions.  But  can  I  expect  its  extermination  while  the 
poison  has  spread  so  widely  that  hardly  anywhere  can  a 
priesthood  or  a  people  be  found  that  is  not  tainted  by  the 
heresy  of  simony  ?  Who  then  confers  a  bishopric,  purely  for 
the  honour  of  God,  the  salvation  of  the  people,  and  his  own 
salvation?  Who  also,  considering  only  these  three  motives, 
accepts  a  bishopric,  parsonage,  or  any  other  benefice  ?  I  wish 
there  were  many  who  did  not  accept  them  merely  from 
servility,  or  to  curry  favour  with  men.  Is  not  thus  fulfilled 
the  word  of  Jeremiah,  who  said:  '  From  the  smallest  to  the 
greatest  of  them,  all  pursue  avarice,  and  from  the  prophet  to 
the  priest,  all  practise  deceit '  ?  And  was  the  disciple  of  Christ 
mistaken  when  he  said:  '  All  seek  their  own,  not  the  things 
that  are  Jesus  Christ's  '  ? 2  We  hear  the  voice  of  the  church, 
which  moans  because  the  gold  has  been  obscured  and  the 
finest  of  colours  changed;  for  the  priesthood  formerly,  as  gold 
made  brilliant  by  fire  and  whitened  by  virtue,  has  now  become 
polluted  and  obscured,  as  saith  St.  Bernard.     Fulfilled  is  the 

1  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  31-32. 

2  St.  Paul  to  the  Philippians  ii.  21. 


HUS  AS  A  BOHEMIAN  PATRIOT 


word  of  our  Saviour:  Iniquity  will  abound  and  love  will  wax 
cold  among  the  people.  Woe,  then,  on  him  who  at  this  time 
does  not  mourn.  Hearing  these  my  words,  most  illustrious 
prince,  the  simoniacal,  ostentatious,  luxurious,  and  unre- 
strained priesthood  attacks  me  before  the  people  by  disparag- 
ing me,  and  declaring  me  a  heretic.  Should  I  then  be  silent  ? 
Woe  on  me,  if  I  were  silent!  It  is  better  for  me  to  die  than 
not  to  oppose  such  wickedness,  for  then  should  I  also  be  a 
participator  in  their  (the  simonists')  crimes,  and  deserve  hell, 
as  they  do.  From  this  may  the  King  of  glory  preserve  your 
Majesty,  who  rules  holily  over  your  people." 

These  valuable  letters  prove  that  it  was  Hus  who  at  this' 
period  first  established  amicable  relations  between  the  two 
kindred  Slavic  countries,  Bohemia  and  Poland,  hoping  that 
they  would  jointly  destroy  simony  and  the  other  terrible  evils 
from  which  the  church  then  suffered.  At  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance the  ambassadors  of  King  Vladislav  endeavoured,  as 
far  as  their  diplomatic  position  allowed  them  to  do  so,  to  save 
Hus.  Vladislav  continued  to  be  on  terms  of  friendship  with 
the  Bohemian  church-reformers,  who  at  one  time  even  offered 
him  the  Bohemian  crown. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   WRITINGS   OF   HUS — PORTRAITS   OF   HUS 

In  distinction  from  many  writers  on  Hus,  I  have  in  this  work 
frequently  referred  to  the  writings  of  the  master — both  Latin 
and  Bohemian,  and  quoted  them  largely.  These  writings 
alone  enable  us  to  thoroughly  conceive  the  real  nature  of  Hus, 
who  was  entirely  guided  by  religious  and  national  enthusiasm, 
while  the  minutiae  of  mediaeval  theological  controversy  did  not 
greatly  appeal  to  him.  If  he  none  the  less  became  a  skilful 
scholastic  dialectician  who  at  Constance  was  able  to  hold  his 
own  against  very  learned  accusers,  the  reason  is  that  such 
skill  was  for  him  a  necessity.  At  a  period  when  politics  and 
religion  were  closely  connected,  the  accusation  of  heresy  was 
the  most  deadly  arm  that  could  be  used  to  destroy  an 
opponent.  It  was  certain  that  those  who  disapproved  of 
Hus's  endeavours  to  reform  the  Bohemian  Church  and  to  raise 
the  Bohemian  nation  to  a  higher  political  and  intellectual 
level  would  attempt  to  declare  him  a  heretic.  While  some  of 
1  the  Latin  works,  particularly  the  Super  IV.  Sententiarum, 
bear  witness  to  Hus's  erudition,  his  true  nature  appears  to  us 
more  clearly  in  the  works  which  he  composed  in  his  own 
language.  His  Bohemian  letters,  though  known  in  England 
and  France  only  in  second-hand  translations,  have  long  been 
read  with  interest,  and  I  have  in  this  work  quoted  largely  the 
equally  valuable  Postilla  and  the  Expositions  (Vyklady).  It 
will,  therefore,  be  sufficient  briefly  to  outline  here  the  general 
complex  of  the  writings  of  Hus.  This,  still  a  difficult  task, 
would  have  been  almost  impossible  before  the  appearance  of 
Dr.  Flajshans's  valuable  bibliographical  work.1     Many  writings 

1  Literarni  cinnost  mistra  Jana  Husi  (Literary  Activity  of  Master  John 
Hus),  1900. 

310 


THE  WRITINGS  AND  PORTRAITS  OF  HUS     311 

formerly  attributed  to  Hus  really  had  as  authors  Matthew  of] 
Janov,  Wycliffe,  Chelcicky,  and  others.  On  the  other  hand,' 
many  authentic  works  of  Hus  disappeared  during  the  so- 
called  "  Catholic  reformation  "  which  began  after  the  battle 
of  the  White  Mountain  in  1620.  The  Jesuits  were  entrusted 
with  the  task  of  discovering  and  destroying  every  book  that 
had  not  been  sanctioned  by  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  posses- 
sion of  such  a  book  became  a  crime,  punishable  by  death.1  It 
is,  therefore,  probable  that  some  works  of  Hus  have  altogether 
perished,  while  others  have  only  recently  been  rediscovered 
and  published.  Though,  therefore,  even  the  latest  biblio- 
graphical study  of  Hus,  that  of  Dr.  Flajshans,  can  lay  no 
claim  to  completeness,  attempts  were  made  from  a  very  early 
period  to  collect  the  scattered  writings  of  the  master  and 
classify  them.  The  first  attempts  to  do  so,  however,  extended 
only  to  the  so-called  writings  of  Constance,  mainly  letters  to 
friends  that  were  written  by  Hus  in  prison.  The  trusty 
disciple  and  companion  of  Hus,  Peter  Mladenovic,  tells  us  that 
he  preserved  copies  of  the  writings  of  the  master,  and  he  gives 
us  some  slight  information  as  to  what  these  writings  were. 
Lawrence  of  Brezova 2  gives  us  somewhat  more  extensive 
information  and  states  that  Hus,  besides  numerous  letters, 
wrote  several  small  treatises  while  in  prison.3  These  writers 
wrote  immediately  after  the  death  of  Hus,  but  somewhat 
later  the  tradition  became  more  obscure.  While,  as  Dr. 
Flajshans  conjectures,  some  works  of  Hus  were  at  this  early 
period  already  definitely  lost,   works  of  other  writers  soon 

1  As  late  as  in  1755  a  Bohemian  forester  named  Thomas  Svoboda  was  ] 
sentenced  to  death  at  the  stake  because  he  had  been  found  in  possession  of  I 
a  Bible.     By  an  act  of  grace  he  was  strangled  before  being  burnt. 

*  See  my  Lectures  on  the  Historians  of  Bohemia,  pp.  35-47. 

*  "  In  ipsa  ergo  captivitate  Magister  Johannes  Hus  virilem  habens  animum 
mori  potius  eligebat  quam  cleri  pestiferi  scelerum  enormitates  approbare, 
multasque  epistolas  et  scripta  utilissima  occulte  suis  scribebat  amicis  .  .  . 
ad  vota  amicorum  et  aliquorum  carceris  custodum  tractatus  pulcerrimos  .  .  . 
edidit  puta  de  mandatis  dei  et  oracione  dominica,  item  qualiter  committitur 
peccatum  mortale,  item  de  cognicione  dei,  item  de  tribus  hostibus  hominis.  .  .  . 
Scripsit  quoque  tractatulum  de  communione  utriusque  speciei."  (Laurentii 
de  Brezova,  Historia  Hussitica,  ed.  Goll,  pp.  332-333.) 


312  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

began  to  be  attributed  to  him.  Books  written  by  Peter 
Chelcicky,1  whose  views  certainly  in  many  respects  resemble 
those  of  Hus,  were  supposed  to  be  the  work  of  the  originator  of 
Bohemian  church-reform,  and  in  the  hymn-books  of  the  com- 
munity of  the  Bohemian  brethren,2  who  considered  themselves 
the  truest  continuators  of  the  work  of  Hus,  numerous  hymns 
by  other  writers  were  attributed  to  the  master.  Later  on, 
the  greater  the  fame  of  Hus  became  the  more  devotional  works 
were  ascribed  to  him.  When  the  Roman  creeds  had  been 
forcibly  re-established  in  Bohemia  it  was  endeavoured  by  all 
means  to  blacken  the  memory  of  the  church-reformer.  For 
that  purpose,  several  writings  containing  extreme  views  were 
wrongly  attributed  to  him.3 

It  is  a  proof  of  the  great  fame  of  Hus  that  some  of  his 
writings  were  among  the  earliest  of  printed  works.  The 
earliest  printed  work  of  Hus  of  which  we  know  the  existence, 
though  no  copy  has  been  preserved,  was  a  small  treatise  en- 
titled Gesta  Christi.  In  1459  two  and  in  1495  four  of  the 
letters  from  Constance  were  printed.  The  quaint  Book  against 
the  Priest  Kitchen-master  was  first  printed  at  Litomysl  in  1509. 
Of  the  last-named  work  a  unique  copy  is  preserved  in  the 
library  of  the  Bohemian  museum;  of  the  others  little  is  known 
except  the  fact  that  they  existed.  Martin  Luther,  who  always 
considered  the  Bohemian  reformer  as  his  forerunner,  in  1536 
!  published  at  Wittenberg  a  translation  of  four  of  Hus's 
Bohemian  letters;  among  them  was  the  famed  "  Letter  to 
the  Whole  Bohemian  Nation."  The  translation  was  in 
German  and  Latin.  A  year  later  a  larger  collection  of  Hus's 
letters  was  printed  under  the  influence  of  Luther,  who  wrote 
an  introduction.4     The  best  early  editions  of  Hus's  works, 

1  See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  pp.  1 53-171. 

2  See  Chapter  IX. 

3  It  is  probable  that  this  occurred  even  much  earlier.  Thus  John  Stokes 
at  the  Council  of  Constance  referred  to  a  treatise  which  had  been  shown  to 
him  at  Prague  as  a  work  of  Hus.  Hus  had  no  connection  whatever  with 
this  treatise. 

4  This  introduction  was  reprinted  with  the  editions  of  the  Latin  works 
published  in  1558  and  171 5. 


THE  WRITINGS  AND  PORTRAITS  OF  HUS     313 

though  they  arc  incomplete  and,  on  the  other  hand,  included 
many  writings  that  are  not  by  the  master,  are  those  published 
at  Nuremberg.  The  Bohemian  works  were  printed  in  1563 
and  in  1592,  the  Latin  ones  in  1558  and  again  in  1715.1  These 
editions  for  many  years  were  the  standard  ones,  and  the  one 
containing  the  Latin  works  has  not  been  superseded  up  to  the 
present  day.  During  the  period  of  Bohemian  independence 
the  Bohemian  works  of  the  master  were  frequently  reprinted; 
this  applies  particularly  to  the  Postilla,  of  which  an  edition 
was  published  at  Nuremberg  in  1563,  and  another  at  Prague  by 
the  celebrated  printer  Melantrich  in  1564.  The  latter  edition, 
which  is  illustrated,  contains,  besides  the  Postilla,  several  of 
Hus's  letters,  which  have  always  been  very  popular.  After 
the  year  1620  such  publications  necessarily  ceased.  When 
the  Bohemians  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century 
again  obtained  a  limited  amount  of  religious  freedom,  their 
thoughts  again  turned  to  Hus.  Joseph  Dobrovsky,2  in  his 
history  of  the  Bohemian  language  and  literature,  is  the  first 
Bohemian  writer  who  again  ventured  to  mention  Hus.  In 
the  third  edition  of  his  work,  to  which  I  have  just  referred, 
he  gives  a  list  of  the  writings  of  Hus,  which  is  principally  in- 
teresting as  proving  how  very  limited  was  the  number  of 
works  of  Hus  that  were  known  at  that  time.  Dobrovsky  in 
this  work  also  gives  short  extracts  from  some  of  Hus's  writ- 
ings. Joseph  Jungmann,  in  his  history  of  Bohemian  litera- 
ture was  already  able  to  enumerate  a  considerably  larger 
number  of  works  of  Hus.  To  no  other  Bohemian  writer  of  the 
nineteenth  century  is  the  memory  of  Hus  so  greatly  indebted 
as  to  Francis  Palacky.3  His  history  of  Bohemia,  founded  on, 
almost  unknown  documents,  revealed  the  great  Bohemian  as  he 
really  was.  In  his  extensive  collection  of  documents  concern- 
ing Hus  published  in  1869,  Palacky  has  printed  the  fullest  and 

1  I  have  used  the  edition  of  1715  when  quoting  Hus's  Latin  works. 

2  b.  1753 — 1829.     See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  pp.  359-362. 
*  Ibid.  pp.  388-403. 


3i4  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

most  correct  version  of  Hus's  letters,  both  Bohemian  and 
Latin,  which  exists.  Professor  Hofler,  in  his  Geschichtschreiber 
der  Hussitischen  Bewegung,  has  also  published  a  considerable 
number  of  letters  of  Hus.  Dr.  Hofler's  superficiality,  his  very 
slight  knowledge  of  the  Bohemian  language,  and  his  fanatical 
hatred  of  church-reform  and  the  Bohemian  nation,  render  it 
necessary  to  use  his  works  with  great  caution.  A  large 
number  of  Hus's  letters,  among  them  some  not  contained  in 
Palacky's  collection,  were  published  by  Mr.  Bohumil  Mares  in 
1891.  The  Latin  letters,  however,  appear  only  in  a  Bohemian 
translation.  Karel  Jaromir  Erben,  in  his  edition  of  Bohemian 
works  of  Hus,  which  will  be  mentioned  presently,  has  included 
fifteen  Bohemian  letters  of  the  master.  Some  of  the  letters 
were  translated  into  English  by  the  late  Rev.  A.  Wratislaw, 
who  was  acquainted  with  the  Bohemian  language,  and  I  have 
translated  a  few  in  my  previous  writings.  I  have  done  so  on 
a  larger  scale  in  the  present  work.  Hus's  letters  have  also 
been  translated  into  English  by  Mr.  Mackenzie,  who  used  the 
French  version  of  M.  de  Bonnechose,  and  by  Mr.  Workman, 
who  for  the  Bohemian  letters  used  the  Latin  translation  of 
Professor  Kvicala,  as  well  as  the  not  always  trustworthy 
German  translation  of  Professor  Hofler. 

Though  the  letters  have  remained  and  perhaps  always  will 
remain  the  work  of  Hus  that  has  most  admirers,  other  works 
of  the  master  were  also  again  published  in  the  nineteenth 
century.  This  task  was  not  always  an  easy  one.  Though 
the  Austrian  government  no  longer  attempted  entirely  to 
suppress  all  memory  of  Hus  among  the  people,  the  absolutist 
authorities  of  Vienna  still  viewed  with  marked  displeasure  all 
mention,  and  particularly  all  praise  of  Hus.  As  late  as  in 
1857  the  celebrated  Bohemian  philologist,  Safarik,1  wrote  to 
the  Russian  scholar  Pogodin:  "Nobody  here  dares  to  edit 
Hus's  works,  writings  against  Hus  would  be  more  in  request. 
Let  the  dead  repose.     Hus  ne  nominetur  quidem,  aut  uratur 

1  See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  pp.  383-387. 


THE  WRITINGS  AND  PORTRAITS  OF  HUS      315 

denuo !  "  The  editors  of  Hus's  writings  had  also  up  to  1848 
to  face  the  perils  of  a  double  censorship.1  Of  the  two  censors 
one  investigated  whether  a  book  contained  anything  opposed 
to  the  policy  of  the  government,  while  the  other,  an  ecclesi- 
astic, suppressed  everything  antagonistic  to  the  Church  of 
Rome.  In  spite  of  these  obstacles  Venceslas  Hanka 2 
published  in  1825  an  edition  of  the  Dcerka  (daughter),  one  of 
Hus's  best  works.  The  edition  is  not,  however,  complete,  as 
several  passages  were  omitted  by  order  of  the  censor.  In  the 
years  1864  to  1868  Karel  Jaromir  Erben  published  three  large 
volumes  containing  the  principal  Bohemian  works  of  Hus, 
such  as  the  Postilla,  the  different  expositions  (Vyklady),  the 
treatise  on  simony  (Svatokupector) ,  the  Dcerka,  some  of  the 
Bohemian  letters,  and  a  large  number  of  other  treatises.  This 
has  remained  and  probably  will  long  remain  the  standard 
edition  of  the  Bohemian  works  of  the  master,  and  it  is  therefore 
to  be  all  the  more  to  be  regretted  that  though  censorship  had 
then  already  been  nominally  suppressed,  some  passages  in  this 
work  were  altered,  others  suppressed  by  order  of  the  govern- 
ment. Several  Bohemian  works  of  Hus  have  been  newly 
edited  and  published  within  the  last  years.  Thus  Dr.  Flaj- 
shans,  the  foremost  authority  on  Hus  at  the  present  time, 
published  in  1900  a  very  handsome  illustrated  edition  of  the 
Postilla.  Dr.  Flajshans  has  very  skilfully  modernised  the 
language,  thus  rendering  the  valuable  book  more  accessible  to 
scholars  unacquainted  with  the  Bohemian  of  the  fifteenth 
century.  In  1907  Dr.  Novotny  published  a  small  edition  of 
the  treatise  on  Simony,  which  has  very  useful  notes.  The 
Latin  works  of  Hus  have  also  not  been  entirely  neglected 
within  the  last  years.  Under  the  patronage  of  the  Bohemian 
Academy  the  publication  of  the  Latin  works  in  a  new  edition 
has  been  begun,  and  it  is  sincerely  to  be  hoped  that  this  under- 
taking will  meet  with  the  success  which  it  fully  deserves.     The 

1  See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  pp.  366-367  and  396-398. 

i  Ibid.  pp.  403-404. 


316  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

editors  decided  wisely  not  to  begin  their  publication  with  the 
one  or  two  Latin  works  that  have  hitherto  been  almost  exclu- 
sively known,  and  have  indeed  already  included  two  or  three 
works  of  Hus  that  had  never  previously  been  printed.  The 
works  already  published  are  the  Expositura  Decalogi,  De  Cor- 
pore  Christi,  De  Sanguine  Christi,  Super  IV.  Sententiarum,  and 
the  Sermones  de  Sanctis.  The  last-named  work,  just  printed 
for  the  first  time,  contains,  as  Dr.  Flajshans  the  editor  writes, 
a  collection  of  sermons  of  unequal  value.  Some  are  Hus's 
own,  while  others  are  merely  copies  from  the  writings  of  St. 
Chrysostomus  and  St.  Bernard. 

It  will  be  seen  from  what  I  have  written  that  the  works  of 
.  Hus  have  been  greatly  neglected,  if  we  consider  the  world- 
wide importance  of  the  master.  Even  now  it  is  impossible  to 
state  with  certainty  the  number  of  genuine  works  of  Hus  that 
have  been  preserved.  Josef  Jungmann,  writing  about  the 
year  1840,  enumerates  thirty-eight  Bohemian  works  of  the 
master.  Jungmann,  whose  book  treated  of  Bohemian  litera- 
ture, makes  no  reference  to  Latin  works.  Dr.  Flajshans, 
whose  work  which  I  have  frequently  quoted  supersedes 
Jungmann's  and  all  other  earlier  bibliographical  attempts, 
enumerates  seventy-four  Latin,  one  German,  and  thirty-six 
Bohemian  works  of  Hus.1  The  ancient  traditions,  which  saw 
in  Hus  only  the  adversary  of  the  Roman  Church,  which  he 
became  by  the  force  of  circumstances,  by  no  means  by  his  own 
wish,  attributed  all  his  numerous  works  to  the  last  troubled 
years  of  his  life.  This,  as  previously  noted,  is  quite  untrue. 
Dr.  Flajshans  has  for  the  first  time  seriously  attempted  to 
establish  at  least  approximately  the  dates  of  the  principal 
writings  of  Hus.  Certainty,  as  the  learned  professor  remarks, 
is  very  often  not  obtainable.  The  entire  obscurity  which  sur- 
rounded all  the  master's  works  renders  research  very  difficult. 
Dr.  Flajshans  divides  all  Hus's  works,  both  Bohemian  and 

1  I  do  not  enter  here  into  the  difficult  question  of  the  manuscripts  of  Hus. 
Dr.  Flajshans  has  written  fully  and  clearly  on  this  subject. 


THE  WRITINGS  AND  PORTRAITS  OF  HUS     317 

Latin,  into  four  periods.  The  first  period,  which  Dr.  Flajshans 
calls  the  academic  one,  extends  from  the  year  1402  to  140Q. 
To  these  peaceful  years,  during  which  Hus  was  not  yet  in  con- 
flict with  the  Church  of  Rome,  belongs  the  master's  most  im- 
portant Latin  work,  the  treatise  Super  IV.  Sententiarum. 
Other  Latin  works  of  this  period  are  the  treatises  De  Corpora 
Christi  and  Dc  Sanguine  Christi.  A  large  number  of  sermons 
also  belong  to  this  period,  as  well  as,  probably,  the  hymns 
attributed  to  Hus.  To  this  period  belong  also  the  synodal 
sermons  (charges)  delivered  by  Hus  by  order  of  Archbishop 
Zajic  of  Hasenburg.  The  second  period,  comprising  the  years 
1409  to  141 1,  is  by  Dr.  Flajshans  called  the  polemical  one,  and 
he  has  thus  generally  indicated  the  purpose  of  many  of  these 
works.  Among  them  are  the  treatises  Contra  Anglicum  J  oh. 
Stokes,  Contra  occultum  adversarium,  Hus's  defence  against 
the  accusation  of  having  driven  the  German  students  from 
Prague.1  Other  works  of  this  period  are  the  Orthographia 
Bohcmica  and  the  Expositio  Decalogi,  which  has  recently  been 
printed  for  the  first  time.  The  third  period,  called  by  Dr. 
Flajshans  the  apostolic  one  (1412-1414),  comprises  the  time 
from  the  beginning  of  Hus's  exile  from  Prague  to  his  departure 
on  his  fateful  journey  to  Constance.  Most  of  the  important 
works  of  the  master,  both  Bohemian  and  Latin,  belong  to  this 
period.  Among  these  are  many  of  the  dogmatic  works,  in 
which  Hus's  opposition  to  the  Roman  see  is  more  marked  than 
in  the  earlier  ones.  Many  of  the  writings  of  the  apostolic 
period  have  previously  been  mentioned  in  this  work,  and  it 
will  here  be  sufficient  to  enumerate  a  few  of  those  that  have 
most  importance.  Of  the  Bohemian  works  the  treatise  on 
Simony,  the  Dcerka  (daughter),  the  five  Vyklady  (exposi- 
tions) of  the  faith,  the  ten  commandments  and  the  Lord's 
prayer,   and  the  Postilla — Hus's  greatest   work  in   his  own 

1  The  full  Latin  title  of  the  treatise  runs  thus:  "  M.  J.  Hus  literis  publicis 
diluit  crimen  falso  sibi  objectum  quod  Germanos  ex  universitate  studii 
Pragensis  expulerit."     The  manuscript  is  in  a  very  imperfect  state. 


3i8  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

language — should  be  mentioned.  Of  Latin  works  the  treatise 
De  Ecclesia,  one  of  Hus's  best  known  but  least  original  books, 
belongs  to  this  time.  Though  Dr.  Flajshans  has  named  this 
period  the  apostolic  one  in  distinction  from  the  previous 
polemical  one,  controversial  writings  abound  at  this  period 
also.  Hus,  indeed,  "  was  ever  a  fighter."  Of  such  controver- 
sial writings  the  treatises  Contra  Pake,  Contra  Stanislaum  de 
Znoyma,  Contra  octo  doctores,  Contra  praedicatorem  Plznensem 
are  the  most  important.  The  last  period,  which  Dr.  Flajshans 
has  not  very  felicitiously  called  the  apologetic  one,  comprises 
the  time  from  Hus's  departure  for  Constance  to  his  death. 
This  period  is  naturally  not  fertile  in  literary  productions; 
but  it  is  to  this  period  that  belong  the  Constance  Letters,  the 
most  precious  memorial  of  Hus  that  we  possess. 

As  is  proved  by  contemporary  writings,  the  tragical  death, 
or  as  the  Bohemians  deemed  it,  the  martyrdom  of  Hus,  was 
immediately  considered  an  event  of  the  highest  importance  in 
all  Europe.  The  subsequent  Hussite  wars,  in  which  almost 
the  whole  of  Europe  was  arrayed  against  Bohemia,  naturally 
spread  the  fame  of  the  master  yet  further.  Portraits  of  Hus 
must,  therefore,  have  been  numerous  from  an  early  time.  It 
is  none  the  less  certain  that  no  existent  portrait  can  lay  claim 
to  be  an  authentic  representation  of  the  Bohemian  reformer. 
It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  many  portraits  of  the  master 
which  have  appeared  almost  continuously  since  his  death  have 
great  historical  interest.  In  Bohemia,  where  everything 
connected  with  Hus  is  still  a  matter  of  the  greatest  interest,  a 
considerable  literature  on  the  subject  of  Hus's  appearance  has 
recently  sprung  up.  It  is  here  sufficient  to  state  that  the  por- 
traits of  Hus  belong  to  two  types  that  are  entirely  different. 
Generally,  though  not  absolutely,  it  may  be  stated  that  the 
older  portraits  represent  Hus  beardless,  and  the  newer  ones 
with  a  large  beard.  The  oldest  representations  are  found  in 
the  illustrated  editions  of  Richenthal's  chronicle,  and  they 
represent  Hus  as  being  without  a  beard.     It  is,  however,  obvious 


MEDALS  OF  HIS  FROM  THE  COLLECTION  IX  THE  MUSEUM  OF  THE 
CITY  OF  PRAGUE  AND  IN  THE  NATIONAL  MUSEUM  OF  BOHEMIA 


THE  WRITINGS  AND  PORTRAITS  OF  HUS     319 

from  the  drawing  of  these  illustrations  that  they  did  not 
attempt  seriously  to  portray  Hus.  Very  many  other  later 
representations  of  a  beardless  Hus  have  been  preserved.  We 
find  several  such  representations  in  a  hymn-book  preserved  in 
the  town  of  Litomerice.1  They  represent,  however,  a  very 
young  man,  and  have  a  very  conventional  character.2  The 
numerous  medals  of  Hus  which  have  been  preserved  represent 
both  types,  and  we  find  even  medals  that  had  a  beardless 
Hus  on  one  side,  and  a  bearded  one — generally  represented  as 
bound  to  the  stake — on  the  other.  Of  the  later  beardless 
representations  of  Hus  the  one  contained  in  the  edition 
of  the  Postilla  of  1563  is  undoubtedly  the  best.  In  the 
course  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  bearded  representa- 
tions of  Hus,  now  so  familiar  to  all,  took  the  place  of  the 
earlier  type.  The  general  acceptation  of  the  new  type  at 
a  time  when  traditions  concerning  the  appearance  of  Hus 
must  still  have  been  widely  spread,  rather  militates  against 
the  assurance  with  which  some  recent  writers  have  declared  in 
favour  of  a  beardless  Hus.  It  is  certain  that  Hus  grew  a  beard 
while  in  prison,  and  after  a  short  stay  in  the  cathedral  he  was 
immediately  led  to  the  stake  on  the  fatal  6th  of  July.  That 
he  was  shaved  immediately  before  his  degradation  from  priest- 
hood that  he  might  present  the  appearance  of  a  secular  priest, 
as  secular  priests  were  then  beardless,  is  a  conjecture  for 
which  I  can  find  no  evidence.  The  faithful  Mladenovic  would 
certainly  have  mentioned  such  an  occurrence.  The  portrait 
of  Hus  without  a  beard  may  also  have  been  drawn  in  accor- 
dance with  the  memory  of  those  who  had  known  Hus  as  a 
young  man.  Those  which  I  have  seen  certainly  do  not  present 
the  appearance  of  a  man  over  forty  whom  illness  and  anxiety 
had  certainly  aged.  It  is  perhaps  in  this  case  wise  not  to  seek 
for  certainty  where  none  can  be  found.     Of  the  countless 

1  In  German,  Leitmeritz. 

•Messrs.   Faber  and   Kurth   have  reproduced   these  miniatures  in   their 
otherwise  valueless  study  entitled:    "  Wie  sah  Hus  aus." 


320  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

paintings  and  statues  of  Hus  which  we  possess,  the  great 
majority  represent  the  master  bearded,  and  this  type  has, 
rightly  or  wrongly,  been  generally  accepted.  One  of  the 
noblest  of  these  portraits  is  the — probably  slightly  idealised — 
one  which  is  preserved  at  Herrenhut,  the  present  centre  of  the 
community  of  the  Bohemian  brethren.  The  fact  that  the 
brethren  consider  themselves  the  true  followers  of  Hus  adds  to 
the  value  of  the  portrait,  which  has  been  reproduced  in  this 
work.  According  to  a  very  ancient  tradition  in  Bohemia,  the 
numerous  statues  of  Hus  that  existed  there  were  by  order  of 
the  Jesuits  declared  to  be  representations  of  that  somewhat 
dubious  saint,  John  of  Nepomuk,  and  have  thus  been  pre- 
served.1 These  statues,  which  every  traveller  in  Bohemia 
will  remember  to  have  seen,  certainly  bear  a  striking  likeness 
to  the  representations  of  the  bearded  Hus.  The  same  type 
has  been  adopted  for  the  statue  of  Hus,  which  forms  part  of 
the  Luther  monument  at  Worms,  and  for  the  painting  of  Hus 
before  the  Council  by  the  Bohemian  painter  Brozik,  which 
now  adorns  the  town  hall  of  Prague.  The  same  can  be  said 
of  the  many  other  modern  pictures  representing  Hus. 

1  It  should  be  stated  that  Professor  Kalousek,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
of  the  Bohemian  historians  of  the  present  day,  totally  denies  the  authenticity 
of  this  tradition. 


CHAPTER  XI 

JEROME    OF    PRAGUE 

In  all  early  accounts  of  the  life  of  Hus  we  find  in  close  connec-  ' 
tion  with  the  name  of  the  master  that  of  Jerome  of  Prague.  I 
have  in  former  works1  pointed  out  that  the  importance  of 
Jerome  as  a  Bohemian  church-reformer  has  been  greatly 
exaggerated.  His  connection  with  Hus  was  neither  as  close, 
nor  as  constant  as  was  formerly  believed.  This  is  indeed 
natural,  as  Jerome  was  frequently  absent  from  Bohemia  for 
considerable  periods  during  the  last  and  most  eventful  years 
of  the  life  of  Hus.  The  career  of  Jerome  contrasts  in 
many  ways  with  that  of  Hus.  While  the  latter  hardly  ever 
left  Bohemia  before  he  undertook  his  fateful  journey  to  Con- 
stance, Jerome  led  a  roving  life,  never  remaining  long  in  one 
country,  and  sometimes  departing  in  a  manner  that  cannot  be 
called  honourable.  There  can  be  few  greater  contrasts  than 
that  between  the  saintly  and  truly  evangelical  simplicity  of 
the  character  of  Hus,  and  the  sophistical  insincerity  of  Jerome, 
who  represents  an  early  type  of  the  humanist — with  all  the 
qualities  and  also  all  the  faults  that  characterise  the  humanist. 
It  is  as  a  humanist  also  that  he  appealed  to  Poggio  Bracciolini, 
whose  letter  to  Bruni  (Leonardo  Aretino)  describing  the  death 
of  Jerome  of  Prague  is  one  of  the  few  documents  connected 
with  the  Bohemian  reformation  which  have  become  somewhat 
widely  known.  It  is  certain  that  Jerome  was  a  man  of  great 
erudition,  and  the  not  very  numerous  contemporary  notices 
referring  to  him  lay  great  stress  on  his  eloquence.  On  one 
occasion,  f  when  both  he  and  Hus  took  "part  in  one  of  the  many 

1  Bohemia,  a  Historical  Sketch,  pp.  137,   138,  and  A  History  of  Bohemian 
Literature,  p.  141, 

321  X 


322  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

disputations  then  customary  at  the  University  of  Prague, 
Jerome's  speech  quite  outbalanced  that  of  the  greater  man, 
and  the  enthusiastic  young  students  conducted  him  home  in 
triumph.  Jerome's  inflammatory  language  was  undoubtedly 
harmful  to  the  cause  of  church-reform,  as  well  as  to  Hus,  whom 
many  even  at  that  time  identified  with  the  views  of  Jerome. 
Probably  not  unaware  of  this,  Hus,  when  leaving  for  Con- 
stance, begged  Jerome  not  to  follow  him  there — a  prayer  that 
remained  unnoticed  by  the  latter. 

Very  little  is  known  of  the  early  years  of  Jerome.  He  is 
stated,  though  on  no  very  certain  authority,  to  have  been  of 
noble  birth,  and  was  probably  somewhat  younger  than  Hus. 
The  frequently  repeated  statement  that  his  family  name  was 
"  Faulfiss "  is  founded  on  a  passage  of  ZEnaeas  Sylvius's 
Historia  Bohemica,  which  was  misunderstood.  ^Enaeas 
Sylvius  mentions x  among  the  Bohemian  church-reformers  a 
man  genere  nobilis,  ex  domo  quam  Putridi  Piscis  vocant.  This 
was  formerly  erroneously  believed  to  refer  to  Jerome.  After 
beginning  his  studies  at  the  University  of  Prague,  where  he 
did  not  attempt  to  obtain  any  ecclesiastical  rank,  Jerome 
proceeded  to  Oxford  in  1398.  He  here  zealously  studied  the 
works  of  Wycliffe,  which  greatly  impressed  him,  and  he  made 
copies  of  the  Dialogus  and  Trialogus.  Always  inclined  to  a 
roving  life,  Jerome  did  not  remain  long  in  England.  He  next 
visited  Paris,  and  for  some  time  pursued  his  studies  at  the 
university  there.  Here  his  outspoken  advocacy  of  the  views 
of  Wycliffe  already  began  to  attract  public  attention,  and  he 
incurred  the  displeasure  of  Gerson,  then  rector  of  the  univer- 
sity. It  may  here  be  noted  that  in  distinction  from  Hus,  who 
mainly  strove  to  reform  the  clergy  and  laity  of  Bohemia 
and  to  lead  them  to  a  truly  Christian  life,  Jerome  delighted  in 
the  sophistical  subtility  that  was  fashionable  among  the 
theologians  and  other  scholars  of  his  age.  A  very  vain 
man,  Jerome  probably  rejoiced   in   the   notoriety  which   he 

1  Aeneae  Silvii  Historia  Bohemica,  chap.  xxxv. 


JEROME  OF  PRAGUE  323 

obtained  in  Paris.  Yet  he  did  not  remain  long  in  that  city. 
Under  what  circumstances  Jerome  left  Paris  is  not  clearly 
known,  and  it  should  be  stated  that  little  is  known  of  most  of 
the  events  of  his  life.  The  friends  of  church-reform  revered 
in  him  one  who  had  had  the  honour  of  obtaining  the  friend- 
ship of  Hus,  and  who  at  the  end  of  his  life  met  his  doom 
bravely.  They  therefore  preferred  to  palliate  some  not  very 
creditable  incidents  in  his  life.  The  partisans  of  Rome,  on 
the  other  hand,  directed  their  attacks  rather  against  Hus, 
whose  truly  saintly  life  rendered  him  a  far  more  dangerous 
adversary  than  Jerome.  It  appears  certain  that  from  Paris 
Jerome  proceeded  to  Koln — then  a  university  town — and 
afterwards  to  Heidelberg.  In  1403  he  is  stated  to  have 
visited  Jerusalem.  It  is  at  any  rate  certain  that  he  returned 
to  Prague  in  1407.  He  there  immediately  took  part  in  the 
theological  controversies  that  were  then  raging  at  the  univer- 
sity. When,  in  1408,  a  French  embassy  arrived  at  Kutna 
Hora,1  then  the  residence  of  King  Venceslas,  and  proposed 
that  the  papal  schism  should  be  terminated  by  the  refusal  of 
the  temporal  sovereigns  to  recognise  in  future  either  of  the 
rival  pontiffs,  Venceslas  summoned  to  Kutna  Hora  the  most 
prominent  members  of  the  university,  wishing  to  consult  them- 
Among  those  summoned  were  Hus  and  Jerome.  All  the 
Bohemian  magisters  spoke  strongly  in  favour  of  the  French 
proposal,  while  the  German  members  of  the  university  strongly 
affirmed  their  allegiance  to  the  Roman  pontiff  Gregory  XII. 
The  Bohemian  magisters  believed  that  they  would  be 
graciously  received  by  the  king,  who  was  known  to  be  favour- 
able to  the  French  proposals.  The  astute  German  rector  of 
the  university,  Henning  von  Baltenhagen,  however,  diverted 
the  king's  attention  from  the  question  of  the  schism,  and  de- 
nounced the  Bohemian  members  of  the  university  as  men  who 
held  heretical  opinions.  The  king  became  greatly  incensed 
and  threatened  with  death  at  the  stake  Hus  and  Jerome,  who 

1  In  German,  Kuttenberg. 


324  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

had  acted  as  leaders  of  the  Bohemian  magisters.1  As  has 
been  previously  stated,  the  king  soon  changed  his  views  and 
again  became  favourable  to  the  party  of  church-reform.  The 
antagonism  between  that  party  and  the  Archbishop  of  Prague, 
however,  continued.  Jerome  continued  to  uphold  his  views 
with  great  violence,  and  here  as  in  so  many  cases  his  attitude 
was  injurious  to  the  party  of  church-reform.  It  was  probably 
in  consequence  of  his  violence  that  Jerome  thought  it  advisable 
again  to  leave  Prague  in  1410.  He  resumed  his  wandering 
life,  and  appears  first  to  have  visited  at  Ofen  the  court  of 
Sigismund,  King  of  Hungary,  and  afterwards  German 
emperor.  Jerome,  whose  self-confidence — to  put  it  mildly — 
was  very  great,  appears  in  Hungary  to  have  exercised  the 
ecclesiastical  functions,  though  he  had  never  been  ordained  as 
a  priest.  It  is  certain  that  he  preached  before  King  Sigismund 
in  the  royal  chapel  at  Ofen  and  violently  denounced  the  rapa- 
city of  the  clergy.  He  was  not  able,  however,  to  remain  long 
safely  in  Hungary.  The  Archbishop  of  Prague  wrote  to  Sigis- 
mund denouncing  Jerome  as  a  heretic  and  adherent  of 
Wy cliff e.  Jerome  was  imprisoned  for  a  short  time,  but  soon 
allowed  to  leave  Hungary.  After  having  perhaps  again  spent 
a  short  time  at  Prague — authentic  evidence  concerning 
Jerome's  many  travels  and  adventures  is  very  scant — he 
appeared  in  Vienna.  He  began  lecturing  at  the  university, 
and  here  also  his  eloquence  attracted  large  audiences.  His 
praise  of  Wycliffe,  however,  very  soon  again  brought  him  into 
conflict  with  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  Representatives 
of  the  Bishop  of  Passau,  to  whose  diocese  Vienna  then  be- 
longed, summoned  Jerome  before  them  and  cautioned  him. 
Jerome  protested  against  the  accusation  of  having  spread 
heretical  opinions,  and  declared  himself  ready  to  clear  himself 
before  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  that  was  to  meet  for  the  pur- 
pose of  hearing  his  defence.  Meanwhile,  he  promised  on  his 
oath  not  to  leave  Vienna  without  the  permission  of  the  eccle- 

1  See  Chapter  IV. 


JEROME  OF  PRAGUE  325 

siastical  authorities.1  Jerome,  however,  succeeded  in  escaping 
secretly  from  Vienna,  and  sought  safety  in  the  castle  of  Vottau 
in  Moravia,  which  belonged  to  Lord  John  of  Lichtenburg, 
an  adherent  of  the  cause  of  church-reform.  From  here  he 
addressed  to  one  of  the  priests  at  Vienna,  to  whom  he  had 
pledged  his  word  that  he  would  not  leave  that  city,  a  letter 
that  was  certainly  audacious,  and  that  some  writers  have  not 
hesitated  to  describe  as  impudent.2  He  declared  that  he  was 
sure  that  the  priest — whose  name  is  not  given — and  his  col- 
leagues would  excuse  him  for  not  heeding  a  promise  which  had 
been  extorted,  if  they  rightly  considered  the  circumstances. 
He  then  proceeded  to  inform  the  priest,  who  was  rector  of  the 
town  of  Laa  in  Austria,  that  he  had  on  his  journey  visited  his 
(the  rector's)  church,  accompanied  by  the  schoolmaster  and 
the  town  secretary,  and  ended  by  assuring  him  and  his  col- 
leagues that  he  was  ready  to  render  them  any  service  in  his 
power.  In  consequence  of  his  flight  from  Vienna,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Bishop  of  Passau  in  that  city  pronounced 
the  penalty  of  excommunication  against  Jerome.3 

The  seclusion  of  the  castle  of  Vottau  soon  became  distaste- 
ful to  the  restless  mind  of  Jerome,  and  we  soon  again  find  him 
in  Prague.  In  the  discussion  that  arose  there  in  1412  con- 
cerning the  sale  of  indulgences,4  Jerome  took  a  prominent 
part.  His  speeches  at  the  university  obtained  great  success, 
particularly  among  the  younger  students.  Shortly  afterwards 
Jerome  again  thought  it  advisable  to  leave  Prague  in  conse- 
quence of  his  participation  in  the  foolish  buffoonery  organised 
by  Lord  Vok  of  Valdstyn.  He  now  proceeded  to  Poland — it 
is  said  on  the  invitation  of  King  Vladislav.  His  courtly 
manners,  his  striking  appearance,  and  his  great  eloquence  here 
also  won  him  many  friends,  but  he  here  also  incurred  the 

1  "  De  non  recedendo  de  Vienna  sine  nostra  licentia  speciali  praestitit 
juramentum  "  (Letter  of  Andrew  of  Grillenberg,  Canon  of  Passau,  to  Arch- 
bishop Zbynek  of  Prague.     Palacky,  Documenta). 

2  Printed  by  Von  der  Hardt,  T.  iv.  p.  683. 

1  This  document  is  printed  in  an  abridged  form  by  Palacky,  Documenta. 
4  See  Chapter  V. 


326  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

hostility  of  the  Roman  Church.  He  was  particularly  blamed 
for  associating  with  Ruthenians,  who  were  members  of  the 
Eastern  Church.  When  the  Bishop  of  Vilna  expressed  his 
disapproval  Jerome  declared  that  the  schismatics  and 
Ruthenians  were  good  Christians,  and  he  continued  to  assist 
at  the  services  of  the  Greek  Church.1  During  his  stay  in 
Northern  Europe,  Jerome  received  the  news  that  Hus  had  been 
summoned  to  appear  before  the  council  at  Constance  He 
wrote  to  him  advising  him  to  do  so,  and  added  that  he  would 
himself  proceed  to  Constance  to  assist  Hus.  A  man  of  a  vain 
and  rather  theatrical  nature  such  as  was  Jerome  felt  tempted 
to  appear  before  the  council,  where  he  would  meet  all  the 
highest  ecclesiastical  dignitaries,  and  representatives  of  all 
the  temporal  sovereigns  and  universities  of  Europe.  Hus 
vainly  endeavoured  to  dissuade  Jerome  from  coming  to  Con- 
stance; he  none  the  less  arrived  there  on  April  14,  1415.  Hus 
was  at  that  time  imprisoned  at  Gottlieben,  but  the  Bohemian 
nobles  who  had  accompanied  him  warned  Jerome  of  the  great 
danger  which  he  encountered  by  remaining  in  the  city. 
Jerome  immediately  decided  to  escape  secretly  from  Con- 
stance,2 and  to  return  to  Bohemia.  He  had  already  arrived 
at  Hirschau,  only  twenty-five  miles  from  the  Bohemian 
frontier,  when  he  was  arrested  by  the  Count  Palatine  John, 
who,  acting  under  the  orders  of  the  Emperor  Sigismund,  con- 
veyed him  in  fetters  to  Constance.  He  arrived  there  on  May 
23,  and  was  immediately  imprisoned.  Hus  appears  to  have 
been  informed  of  these  events,  and  though,  speaking  generally, 
he  did  not  often  allude  to  Jerome,  he  mentioned  him  several 

1  Great  stress  was  laid  on  this  accusation  at  Jerome's  trial  at  Constance. 
In  the  act  of  accusation — printed  by  Von  der  Hardt,  T.  iv.  p.  679 — it  is 
stated:  (Jerome)  "  dixit  expresse  quod  praedicti  schismatici  et  Rutheni 
essent  boni  Christiani.  Quodque  idem  Dominus  Episcopus  eidem  Hieronymo 
in  faciem  suam  tunc  restitit  dicens:  Quod  non  diceret  eos  esse  bonos  Chris- 
tianos.  Ipse  vero  Hieronymus  in  eisdem  suis  erroribus  permansit  eosdem 
Ruthenos  et  fidem  ipsorum  perversam  approbando." 

2  It  is  this  secret  escape  of  Jerome  from  Constance  which  undoubtedly 
supplied  Richenthal  with  a  foundation  for  his  totally  untrue  tale  that  Hus 
had  attempted  to  escape  from  Constance  in  disguise. 


JEROME  OF  PRAGUE  327 

times  in  his  last  letters  from  prison.  In  a  Bohemian  letter, 
dated  June  27,  Hus  writes  with  touching  humility:  "  I  will  tell 
you  that  the  Lord  God  knows  why  He  defers  my  death  and 
that  of  my  dear  brother,  master  Jerome;  with  regard  to  him,  I 
hope  that  he  will  die  holily  and  guiltlessly,  and  that  he  will 
bear  himself  and  suffer  more  bravely  than  I,  faint-hearted 
sinner  that  I  am."  x 

Hus  was  too  holy  and  too  saintly  a  man  to  be  a  good  judge \ 
of  character.  Jerome  at  first  indeed  displayed  great  fortitude,  \ 
but  after  the  martyrdom  of  Hus  his  courage  entirely  failed 
him.  Hoping  to  save  his  life  and  regain  his  liberty,  he 
solemnly  recanted  all  his  former  so-called  heretical  views.  He 
did  not  even  hesitate  to  blame  severely  his  master  Hus.  He 
expressed  his  altered  views  in  a  memorable  letter  addressed  to 
the  Bohemian  nobleman,  Lacko  of  Kravar.  The  letter,2  little 
known  except  in  Bohemia,  deserves  translation  here,  as  it 
throws  a  strong  and  strange  light  on  the  character  of  Jerome 
of  Prague.  The  letter,  dated  September  12,  1415,  runs  thus: 
"  My  services  to  you,  first  of  all,  dear  noble  lord,  and  my 
particular  benefactor.  I  bring  to  the  knowledge  of  your  lord- 
ship that  I  am  alive  and  in  good  health  at  Constance.  I  hear 
that  there  is  much  excitement  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia  because 
of  the  death  of  Master  Hus,  as  if  he  had  been  unjustly  con- 
demned and  brutally  burnt.  Therefore  I  write  this  of  my  own 
free  will  to  you  as  to  my  lord,  that  you  may  know  what  you 
should  do.  Therefore  I  beg  you  through  this  letter,  maintain 
nowise  that  wrong  was  done  to  him  (Hus).  According  to  my 
belief,  that  was  done  to  him  which  had  to  be  done.  Do  not 
believe,  my  lord,  that  I  write  this  forced  by  necessity,  nor  that 
I  deserted  him  through  fear.  I  was  long  kept  in  prison  and 
many  great  scholars  endeavoured  to  lead  me  to  other  views, 

1  Printed  by  Mares,  Listy  Husovy  (Letters  of  Hus),  p.  228. 

2  This  letter  written  in  Bohemian,  was  first  printed  by  Dobrovsky  in  his 
Geschichte  der  bohmischen  Sprache  und  Literatur.  It  was  subsequently  re- 
printed in  the  collection  entitled  Vybor  z  Literatury  ceske  (Selections  from 
Bohemian  Literature) ,  and  in  Palacky,  Documenta. 


328  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

but  they  did  not  induce  me  to  change  my  opinions.  I  also 
believed  that  injury  had  been  done  to  him  (Hus).  But  when 
the  articles,  because  of  which  he  was  condemned,  were  shown 
to  me,  I  examined  them  very  carefully  and  discussed  them 
repeatedly  with  more  than  one  scholar.  I  then  clearly  under- 
stood that  of  these  articles  some  were  heretical,  some  false, 
others  liable  to  cause  scandal  and  harm.  But  I  still  continued 
doubtful,  not  thinking  that  these  articles  were  by  the  deceased ; 
for  I  believed  that  they  contained  only  fragments  and  seg- 
ments taken  from  the  context  of  his  speeches,  and  that  his 
meaning  had  thus  been  altered.1  And  I  began  to  wish  for  his 
books,  and  the  council  gave  me  some  manuscripts  written  by 
his  own  hand  that  I  might  examine  them.  Then  I,  together 
with  reverent  masters  of  the  holy  scriptures,  again  examined 
the  articles  because  of  which  he  had  been  burnt,  and  compared 
them  with  the  books  written  in  his  own  handwriting;  and  I 
found  in  his  books  all  the  contents  of  the  articles,  fully  and 
almost  in  the  same  words.  Therefore  I  cannot  do  otherwise 
than  justly  declare  that  the  deceased  wrote  many  false  and 
hurtful  things.  And  I,  who  was  his  friend,  and  with  my  lips 
defended  his  honour  against  all,  having  found  this,  must 
decline  to  be  the  defender  of  such  errors;  this  I  have  in  lengthy 
speech  declared  before  the  whole  council.  Now  having  much 
work  to  do,  I  cannot  write  more  extensively,  but  I  think  that 
with  God's  help  I  shall  write  extensively  about  the  events 
concerning  me,  and  (these  writings)  I  will  send  to  your  grace. 
And  now  I  commend  myself  to  your  favour.  Written  by  my 
own  hand  at  Constance  on  the  Thursday  after  the  nativity  of 
the  mother  of  God." 

Dobrovsky,  who  discovered  this  important  document  in 
the  Carthusian  monastery  of  Dolein  in  Moravia,  had  at  first 
some  doubts  as  to  its  authenticity.  Further  research  tends, 
however,  to  prove  that  Jerome  certainly  was  the  author  of 

1  It  has  been  previously  shown  that  the  council  did  actually  proceed  in 
this  manner  for  the  purpose  of  convicting  Hus  of  heresy. 


JEROME  OF  PRAGUE  329 

this  mean  and  Judas-like  letter.  Dr.  Flajshans,  the  most 
recent  Bohemian  writer  on  the  life  of  Hus,  admits  the  authen- 
ticity of  Jerome's  letter,  but  suggests  that  he  may  have  been 
forced  to  write  it.  There  can  at  any  rate  only  have  been; 
moral  persuasion,  for  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  to  prove 
that  torture  was  applied  to  Jerome.  That  the  true  nature  of 
Jerome  should  formerly  have  been  so  little  known  is  un- 
doubtedly a  consequence  of  the  tradition — which  arose  at  a 
time  when  little  was  known  of  Bohemia — placing  Jerome  on 
the  same,  or  nearly  the  same  level  as  Hus.  Even  this  short 
note  on  Jerome  is,  I  think,  sufficient  to  denote  the  world-wide 
difference  that  existed  between  the  two  men.  Jerome,  a  man 
not  exempt  from  the  scepticism  innate  in  the  humanist,  re-  j 
canted  for  the  purpose  of  saving  his  life  and  regaining  his  | 
liberty. 

As  mentioned  in  his  letter,  Jerome  shortly  after  Hus's 
martyrdom,  recanted  the  so-called  heresies  of  which  he  had 
been  accused.  This  was  done  by  means  of  a  statement  which 
Jerome  himself  drew  up  and  forwarded  to  the  council.  That 
assembly,  however,  distrusting  his  motives,1  decided  to  demand 
a  formal  and  solemn  recantation  in  the  presence  of  the  council. 
Jerome  consented  and  his  public  abjuration  took  place  at  a 
meeting  of  the  council  on  Sepetmber  23,  1415.2  Jerome  first 
read  out  the  statement  which  he  had  previously  sent  to  the 
council,  stating  that  knowing  the  true  Catholic  and  apostolic 
faith,  he  anathematised  all  heresies,  and  in  particular  the 
teaching  of  John  Wycliffe  and  John  Hus  as  contained  in  their 
works,  tracts  and  sermons  before  the  clergy  and  the  people. 
Having  read  out  this  statement,  Jerome  added  that,  had  he 
formerly  possessed  the  knowledge  which  he  now  had,  he  would 
never  have  maintained  these  errors.     If  then  his  liberty  were 

1  See  the  statement  in  Von  der  Hardt,  T.  iv.  p.  497:  "  Pellectus  per 
concilium  ad  recantandum  non  ex  animo  sed  metu  supplicii  ac  spe  evadendi 
consensit  tandem,  formula  a  se  conscripta  et  in  congregatione  solemni 
praelecta." 

2  Von  der  Hardt  (T.  iv.,  pp.  499-514)  gives  a  full  account  of  the  proceedings 
on  that  day  and  prints  in  full  the  documents  referred  to  above. 


330  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

restored  to  him  he  would,  possessing  the  knowledge  and  in- 
struction which  he  had  now  acquired,  be  ruled  by  these  pre- 
cepts, and  offer  his  soul  as  a  new  one  to  the  bride  of  Christ, 
that  is  to  say  the  holy  church.  The  council,  however, 
evidently  continued  to  distrust  Jerome,  and  insisted  on  his 
making  several  further  statements  in  which  he  anathematised 
a  large  number  of  articles  derived  from  the  writings  of 
Wycliffe,  which  were  all  specially  enumerated.  He  also  took 
a  solemn  oath  henceforth  to  remain  faithful  to  the  true  doc- 
trine of  the  Catholic  Church,  adding  that,  should  he  fail  to  do 
so,  he  accepted  as  deserved  every  punishment  that  might  be 
inflicted  on  him;  he  lastly  declared  that  he  had  made  all  these 
statements  freely  and  spontaneously. 

Jerome  was  not,  however,  liberated.  He  appears  soon  to 
have  regretted  his  recantation.  On  October  29,  1415,  Gerson 
read  before  the  council  a  statement 1  treating  of  the  recanta- 
tion of  heretics  generally,  but  obviously  aimed  at  Jerome. 
Among  other  matters,  Gerson  stated  that  one  who  had  recanted 
heretical  opinions  must  necessarily  continue  to  be  suspected 
of  heresy.  This  declaration  of  Gerson  produced  a  great  im- 
pression on  the  mind  of  Jerome.  He  felt  that  he  had  failed 
to  obtain  the  confidence  of  those  to  whose  cause  he  had 
devoted  himself.  On  the  other  hand,  though  he  had  not  been 
freed,  his  renunciation  had  rendered  his  imprisonment  less 
severe.  It  is  therefore  certain  that  echoes  of  the  fierce  resent- 
ment and  religious  enthusiasm  prevailing  in  Bohemia  must 
have  reached  him  at  Constance.  He  determined  to  act  in  a 
manner  which  practically  involved  suicide.  It  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  mention  how  greatly  classical  learning  and  that 
of  the  stoics  in  particular  has  lauded  suicide,  as  the  door 
ever  open,  when  all  other  issues  are  closed.  These  theories 
of  the  ancients  must  have  appealed  to  an  early  humanist  in 
a  manner  inconceivable  to  us  whose  ancestors  have  for  five 
centuries  been  steeped  in  Greek  and  Latin  culture. 

1  "  De  protestatione  et  revocatione  in  negotio  fidei  "  (printed  by  Von  der 
Hardt,  T.  iii.  pp.  39"52) 


JEROME  OF  PRAGUE  331 

Not  long  after  Gerson's  declaration  Jerome  again  gave 
utterance  to  statements  that  were  considered  heretical,  thus  as 
writes  Theodoric  Vrie,1  scandalising  the  whole  sacred  council. 
When  reproached  by  members  of  the  council,  he  claimed  a 
hearing  before  the  full  assembly.  This  was  granted  to  him, 
and  he  appeared  before  the  council  on  May  30,  1416.  De  Vrie 
notices  his  clear  voice,  pallid  look  and  long  black  beard. 
Questioned  by  members  of  the  council  with  regard  to  the 
heretical  opinions  which  he  had  again  expressed,  Jerome 
answered  in  a  very  impressive  manner.  He  declared  that  he 
by  no  means  denied  having  recanted,  but  that  he  had  never 
committed  a  greater  sin  and  crime  than  when  he  wrote  his 
recantation.  Never  also  had  he  so  greatly  regretted  any  sin, 
as  he  now  regretted  having  rejected  the  opinions  of  those  holy 
men,  John  Wycliffe  and  John  Hus,  and  having  expressed  his 
approval  of  the  death  of  those  good  men.  A  new  act  of  accusa- 
tion against  him  was  now  drawn  up  2  which  contained  prin- 
cipally the  same  accusations  that  had  previously  been  brought 
against  Jerome.  Though  he  who  wishes  to  study  thoroughly 
the  history  of  the  Bohemian  reformation  must  consider  it  his 
duty  to  wade  through  the  contents  of  this  ponderous  docu- 
ment, I  do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  refer  to  them  here. 
The  only  interesting  part  of  the  document  is  that  which  refers 
to  Jerome's  connection  with  the  "  orthodox  "  Ruthenians,  as 
it  bears  witness  to  the  intense  animosity  which  then  already 
existed  between  the  Roman  and  Greek  churches. 

A  very  striking  document  concerning  the  last  days  of 
Jerome  has  fortunately  been  preserved  and  has  rightly  at- 
tracted great  attention.  I  refer  to  Poggio  Bracciolini's  letter 
to  Bruni  (Leonardo  Aretino).3  Though  Poggio  was  present 
at  the  council  as  papal  legate,  his  letter  is  written  entirely  in 

1  VonMer  Hardt,  T.  Hi.,  p.  182.  *  Ibid.  T.  iv.,  pp.  634-691. 

3"  Poggii  Florentini  de  Hieronymi  Haeritici  obitu  et  supplicio  narratio." 
(It  has  been  frequently  printed,  by  Von  der  Hardt,  by  Freherus — scriptores 
rerum  Bohemicarum,  together  with  Aenaeas  Sylvius,  Historia  Bohemica,  by 
Palacky,  Documenia,  etc.) 


332  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

the  manner  of  an  Italian  humanist,  and  its  brilliancy  and 
eloquence  have  bestowed  on  the  memory  of  Jerome  a  not 
entirely  merited  aureole.     Poggio  by  no  means  approved  of 
Jerome  as  a  church-reformer.     He  indeed  states  that  if  he  had 
said  anything  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  church,  he  de- 
served punishment,  and  that  the  great  talents  that  nature 
had  given  him  were  his  misfortune.     It  was  his  eloquence  and 
courage  that  appealed  to  the  humanist.     "  I  must  confess," 
writes  Poggio  of  Jerome,  "  that  I  never  saw  one  who  in  the 
eloquence  of  his  defence  came  as  near  to  the  eloquence  of  the 
ancients,  whom  we  admire  so  much."     Later  on  the  Italian 
humanist  writes:    "  His   (Jerome's)    voice   was   sweet,   clear 
and  resounding.     The  dignity  of  the  orator's  jests  now  ex- 
pressed indignation,  now  moved  to  compassion,  which,  how- 
ever,  he  neither  claimed  nor  wished  to  obtain.     He  stood 
before  his  judges  undaunted  and  intrepid.     Not  only  not  fear- 
ing, but  even  seeking  death,  he  appeared  as  another  Cato.     He 
was  indeed  a  man  worthy  of  eternal  memory  in  men's  minds." 
That  such  a  mode  of  defence  or  rather  defiance  did  not  tend 
to  conciliate  the  members  of  the  council  is  evident.     Jerome's 
speech l  sealed  his  fate.     The  prelates  were  no  doubt  particu- 
larly indignant  at  Jerome's  allusions  to  the  unedifying  life  then 
led  by  most  members  of  the  clergy.2    Jerome  was  as  a  re- 
lapsed heretic  condemned  to  death  at  the  stake,   and  the 
sentence  was  carried  out  on  May  30,  immediately  after  his 
appearance   before   the   council.     Poggio   thus   describes   his 
death:    "  With  joyful  brow,  cheerful  countenance,  and  elated 
face  he  went  to  his  doom.     He  feared  not  the  flames,  not  the 
torments,  not  death.     None  of  the  stoics  ever  suffered  death 
with  so  constant  and  brave  a  mind,  and  he  indeed  seemed  to 
desire  it.     When  he  had  reached  the  spot  where  he  was  to  die, 

1  Printed  in  full  in  Von  der  Hardt's  account  of  the  trial  (T.  iv.) 
'Jerome    stated:     "Cum    patrimonia    ecclesiarum    primum    deberentur 
pauperibus  et  advenis  ac  demum   fabricis,   indignum  videri,   dispendi   ilia 
meretricibus,   conviviis,   equorum   copiae  aut  canum   saginae,   cultui   vesti- 
mentorum  et  aliis  rebus  indignis  religione  Christi  "  (Palacky,  Documenta). 


JEROME  OF  PRAGUE  333 

he  devested  himself  of  his  garments,  and  knelt  down  in  prayer. 
Logs  of  wood  were  then  piled  about  round  his  body,  which 
they  covered  up  to  the  breast.  When  they  were  lighted,  he 
began  to  sing  a  hymn,  which  was  interrupted  by  the  smoke 
and  the  flames.  This,  however,  is  the  greatest  proof  of  the 
constancy  of  his  mind,  that  when  the  lictor  (town  official  or 
beadle)  wished  to  light  the  stake  behind  his  back,  that  he  might 
not  see  it,  he  said:  Come  here  and  light  the  stake  before  my 
eyes,  for  if  I  had  feared  it  I  should  never  have  come  to  this 
spot,  as  it  was  in  my  power  to  fly.  Thus  perished  a  man 
eminent  beyond  belief.  I  saw  his  end,  I  contemplated  every 
one  of  his  acts.  Be  it  that  he  acted  thus  from  faithlessness  or 
from  obstinacy,  you  could  perceive  that  it  was  a  man  of  the 
philosophic  school  who  had  perished.  .  .  .  Mutius  did  not 
allow  his  hand  to  be  burnt  with  more  brave  a  mind  than  this 
man  his  whole  body.  Socrates  did  not  drink  the  poison  as 
willingly  as  this  man  submitted  himself  to  the  flames."  * 

Though  Jerome  perished  by  the  same  terrible  death  as  Hus, 
nothing  can  be  more  different  than  the  circumstances  which 
preceded  the  deaths  of  the  two  men.  Hus,  inspired  here  as.: 
everywhere  by  a  truly  Christian  feeling,  was  ready  to  render  up 
his  life  should  his  duty  as  a  Christian  oblige  him  to  do  so. 
Meanwhile,  he  "  guarded  it  as  God's  high  gift  from  scathe  and 
wrong."  Thus  he  refused  to  go  to  Rome,  where  certain  death 
awaited  him,  because  he  believed  that  his  conscience  then 
ordered  him  to  live.  He  very  clearly  expressed  his  views  on 
this  subject  in  a  passage  in  the  treatise  De  Ecclesia,  which  I 
have  previously  quoted.  He  did  not  heed  the  accusation  of 
cowardice,  which  was  in  consequence  raised  against  him  by 
his  enemies,  and  which  has  been  repeated  by  some  of  his 
modern  detractors.     Similarly,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  leave 

1  Though  Poggio  Bracciolini's  account  of  the  death  of  Jerome,  of  which  he 
was  an  eye-witness,  is  somewhat  rhetorical,  yet  it  can  on  the  whole  be  con- 
sidered as  trustworthy.  Other  writers  describe  the  event  similarly,  though 
they  lay  less  stress  on  the  heroism  of  Jerome.  Only  Richenthal,  not  a  very 
reliable  authority,  states.that  Jerome  "  screamed  lowdly  "  while  in  the  flames. 


334  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Prague  when  his  life  was  menaced  there  by  the  Germans,  who 
were  determined  to  destroy  the  Bethlehem  chapel.  His  diffi- 
culty of  deciding  what  course  to  adopt  in  this  case  is  shown  by 
many  passages  of  his  writings  belonging  to  this  period.  When, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  council  demanded  that  he  should  recant 
heretical  opinions  which  he  had  never  held,  he  refused  and 
calmly  and  unhesitatingly  laid  down  his  life.  He  well  knew 
that  had  he  himself  admitted  that  he  had  been  a  heretic,  his 
life-work  for  the  church  and  the  state  of  Bohemia  would  have 
been  undone.  Jerome,  on  the  other  hand,  did  not  hesitate 
both  at  Vienna  and  at  Constance  to  preserve  his  life  by  means 
that  can  hardly  be  called  otherwise  than  dishonourable. 
When  life,  or  at  least  the  pleasures  and  interests  of  life,  ap- 
peared to  vanish,  he  faced  and  certainly  bravely  faced  death. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   HUSSITE    WARS 

It  would  be  impossible  to  realise  the  importance  of  Hus  in  the 
world's  history  if  we  dealt  of  the  events  of  his  life  indepen- 
dently of  those  of  the  subsequent  Hussite  wars.  In  a  passage 
which  I  have  previously  quoted,  Palacky  has  pointed  out  how 
comparatively  unimportant  would  have  been  the  place  of  Hus 
in  history  had  not  the  unrivalled  bravery  of  the  Bohemian 
people  and  the  genius  of  leaders  such  as  Zizka  enabled  Bohemia 
to  beat  back  the  united  forces  of  almost  all  Europe,  which 
endeavoured  to  crush  the  religious  movement  in  the  country. 
Though  Palacky  died  more  than  thirty  years  ago,  no  other 
writer  has  since  his  time  more  clearly  grasped  the  real  character 
of  the  Hussite  wars  than  he  did.  In  one  of  his  controversial 
writings,1  he  says:  "  One  school  of  historians  to  which  I  have 
the  honour  to  belong  has  maintained  that  the  Hussite  war  is 
the  first  war  in  the  world's  history  that  was  fought,  not  for 
material  interests,  but  for  intellectual  ones,  that  is  to  say,  for 
ideas.  This  ideal  standpoint  was  so  seriously  and  so  sincerely 
maintained  by  the  Bohemians  that  when  victorious  they  never 
attempted  to  replace  it  by  a  more  interested  policy.  It  is 
true  that  during  the  war  they  forced  foreign  communities  to 
pay  taxes  and  an  annual  tribute  to  them;  but  they  never 
thought  of  subduing  them,  or  of  extending  their  dominion  over 
foreign  lands — a  thing  that  under  the  circumstances  of  the 
time  would  not  have  been  difficult.  I  know  that  among  the 
modern  school  of  German  historians  there  are  persons  2  who 

1  Die  Geschichte  des  Hussitenthiims  und  Profssor  Constantin  Hofler.  I 
have  here  only  been  able  to  allude  briefly  to  this  brilliant  passage.  Those 
interested  in  the  matter  will  find  a  translation  of  a  considerable  part  of  it 
in  my  Lectures  on  the  Historians  of  Bohemia,  pp.  103-105. 

*  Palacky  uses  the  somewhat  contemptuous  German  word,  Subjecte. 

335 


336  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

attribute  this  attitude  mainly  to  the  incapacity  of  the  ancient 
Bohemians,  and  who  with  brutal  derision  attempt  to  deduce 
from  it  their  racial  inferiority.  I  leave  it  to  a  more  enlightened 
posterity  to  decide  what  conduct  is  nearer  to  barbarism — 
that  of  the  disinterested  victor,  or  that  of  the  imperious  and 
rapacious  conqueror.  Two  centuries  later  the  enemies,  after 
one  victory — that  of  the  White  Mountain — certainly  acted 
differently,  and  endeavoured  in  every  way  to  use  their  victory 
for  the  purpose  of  material  gain.  Was  their  conduct  nobler 
and  more  Christian?  As  to  the  Hussites,  they  never  during 
their  prolonged  and  heroic  struggle  ceased  to  consider  it  and 
to  term  it  a  struggle  for  the  liberty  of  God's  word.  ..." 

This  feeling  here  so  finely  expressed  by  a  man  of  learning 
is  innate  in  the  mass  of  the  Bohemian  people;  it  is  as  strong 
in  the  peasant  or  workman  as  in  the  Bohemian  scholar  who 
has  studied  the  annals  of  his  country.  "  The  Hussite  battles, 
as  Dr.  Gindely1  wrote,  "were  fought  for  a  national  cause; 
poets  and  painters  chose  them  as  their  subject,  the  most 
stirring  popular  songs  date  from  this  time;  the  names  of  the 
leaders  of  this  movement  have  lingered  in  the  memory  of  the 
people ;  the  name  of  no  Bohemian  king  is  as  familiar  to  them 
as  that  of  the  blind  leader  of  the  Hussite  armies.2  The  violent 
destruction  of  the  national  constitution  by  Ferdinand  II.,  the 
sufferings  which  the  country  endured  during  the  Austrian  war 
of  succession  at  the  hand  of  Prussians,  Bavarians  and  French- 
men, events  that  occurred  but  one  or  two  centuries  ago,  are 
forgotten.  On  all  these  occasions  the  peasant  was  a  mere 
sufferer,  he  was  deprived  of  his  religious  convictions  or  of  his 
worldly  goods,  but  he  never  defended  himself.  In  the  Hussite 
wars  he  had  himself  been  a  fighter,  he  had  been  a  victorious 
warrior,  and  his  flail  and  fighting  club  had  successfully  beaten 
back  the  enemies  of  his  country  and  his  faith. 

1  Abridged  from  Dr.   Gindely,   Geschichte  der  Ertheilung  des  bohmischen 
Majestdtsbriefes,  pp.  116-117. 
a  Zizka. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  337 

Though  the  Bohemians  were,  even  after  the  execution  of 
Hus,  reluctant  to  separate  entirely  from  the  Western  Church , 
the  events  that  followed  the  death  of  the  master  led  inevitably 
to  that  result.  The  treacherous  conduct  of  the  council  and 
particularly  of  Sigismund,  the  heir  to  the  throne,  caused 
general  and  vehement  indignation  in  Bohemia.  If  civil  war 
did  not  immediately  break  out  in  the  country,  this  must  be 
attributed  to  the  attitude  of  King  Venceslas,  and  more  parti- 
cularly of  his  queen.  Queen  Sophia  openly  expressed  her 
indignation  at  the  treatment  of  her  former  chaplain,  and 
Venceslas  made  no  secret  of  the  displeasure  which  the  treachery 
of  his  brother,  and  the  conduct  of  the  Bohemian  priests  who 
had  so  fiercely  attacked  Hus,  caused  him.  No  doubt  forseeing 
this,  John  "  the  iron,"  the  wealthy  Bishop  of  Litomysl,  who 
had  been  the  leader  of  the  adversaries  of  Hus,  addressed  a 
letter 1  to  King  Venceslas  on  July  n,  only  a  few  days  after 
the  death  of  the  master.  He  had  heard,  he  wrote,  that  many 
said  that  he  had  acted  at  Constance  in  a  manner  hostile  to 
Venceslas  and  to  Bohemia;  he  begged  the  king  to  place  no 
faith  in  such  reports,  and  declared  that  he  had  sought  only  the 
king's  advantage  and  the  honour  of  the  country. 

This  letter  formed  the  beginning  of  an  extensive  corre- 
spondence between  the  members  of  the  council  and  Sigismund 
on  one  hand,  the  Bohemians  on  the  other;  this  correspondence 
had,  however,  but  little  influence  on  the  course  of  events.  The 
national  movement  soon  assumed  a  somewhat  revolutionary, 
though  as  yet  by  no  means  anti-dynastic  character.  Some  of 
the  nobles  and  knights  connected  with  the  court  of  King  Ven- 
ceslas were  indeed  among  the  leaders  of  the  movement.  To- 
gether with  a  large  part  of  the  nobles  of  Moravia  the  Bohemian 
nobles  met  at  Prague  on  September  2,  1515.  They  drew  up  a 
solemn  protest,2  which  they  forwarded  to  the  council.     The 

1  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  563-565. 

2  The  document  from  which  I  extract  this  passage  is  well  known  under 
the  name  of  the  Protestatio  Bohemorum.  It  has  been  printed  by  Von  der 
Hardt,  Loder,  and  more  recently  by  Palacky.     Loder  states  that  his  edition 

Y 


338  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

document  said:  "  Master  John  Hus  was  a  good,  just  and 
catholic  man,  who  lived  in  our  kingdom  for  many  years  and 
was  favourably  known,  because  of  his  good  conduct,  pure  life 
and  fame;  in  a  truly  catholic  manner  he  taught  us  and  our 
subjects1  the  law  of  scripture  and  of  the  holy  prophets,  ex- 
pounding the  books  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
according  to  the  teaching  of  the  holy  doctors,  of  whom  the 
church  approves.  He  preached  much  and  left  many  writings, 
and  he  consistently  detested  all  errors  and  heresies,  and  con- 
tinuously and  faithfully  admonished  us  and  all  the  faithful  in 
Christ  also  to  detest  them ;  he  also  by  his  words,  writings  and 
deeds  exhorted  us,  as  far  as  it  was  in  his  power,  to  preserve 
peace  and  charity.  We  have  never  heard,  nor  been  able  to 
understand — in  spite  of  all  the  attention  which  we  gave  to 
the  matter — that  the  said  Master  John  Hus  ever  taught  any 
errors  or  heresies  in  his  speeches,  or  preached  or  asserted  such 
matters  in  any  fashion  whatever,  or  that  he  scandalised  by 
word  or  deed  us  or  our  subjects  in  any  way.  Living  piously 
and  gently  in  Christ  he  both  by  word  and  deed  strove  most 
diligently  to  conform  to  the  evangelical  law  and  the  teaching 
of  the  holy  fathers,  for  the  edification  of  the  holy  mother  the 
church,  and  for  the  salvation  of  his  fellow-men."  This  valu- 
able document  clearly  expresses  the  opinion  which  the  more 
intellectual  and  more  pious  of  his  countrymen  formed  of  Hus's 
life  and  teaching  immediately  after  his  death.  The  letter  ends 
with  what  may  again  be  considered  a  covert  threat  to  Sigis- 
mund.  The  nobles  declared  that  any  one  who  should  affirm 
that  heresies  had  sprung  up  in  Bohemia  or  Moravia  should  be 
considered  the  worst  of  traitors  unless  such  statements  should 
be  made  by  Sigismund,  the  heir  and  successor  to  the  throne, 
whom,  however,  the  nobles  hoped  and  believed  not  to  be 
guilty  of  such  an  offence.     This  was  undoubtedly  a  prelude  to 

was  from  a  manuscript  preserved  at  Edinburgh  of  which  a  copy  existed  at 
Oxford.     (See  my  Bohemia,  a  Historical  Sketch,  p.  140,  n.) 
1  i.e.  the  tenants  on  the  estates  of  the  Bohemian  nobles. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  33q 

the  subsequent  deposition  of  Sigismund.  This  protest,  which 
bore  the  seals  of  four  hundred  and  fifty-two  nobles  and  knights 
of  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  was  forwarded  to  Constance,  and 
caused  great  indignation  and  some  consternation  among  the 
members  of  the  council. 

The  Bohemian  patriots  were  far  too  shrewd  not  to  perceive 
the  grave  danger  to  which  their  bold  attitude  exposed  them. 
Only  three  days  after  their  letter  of  defiance  had  been  sent  to 
Constance,  they  bound  themselves  by  a  solemn  covenant l  to 
unite  in  the  defence  of  freedom  of  thought  and  in  resistance  to 
arbitrary  and  unjust  excommunications.  They  decided  to 
send  to  Constance  envoys  who  were  to  complain  of  the  murder 
of  Hus.  They  maintained  the  right,  and  even  the  duty  of  the 
priests  on  their  estates  to  preach  the  word  of  God  freely  and 
truly  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  Scripture.  Should  a 
priest  be  by  his  bishop  hindered  from  acting  in  this  manner, 
the  rector,  doctors,  and  magisters  of  the  theological  faculty  of 
the  University  of  Prague  were  to  act  as  arbiters.  Should  a 
pope  at  a  later  period  be  elected,  lawfully  and  according  to 
the  ancient  regulations,  they  would  send  representatives  to 
him  who  were  to  complain  of  the  injury  done  to  Bohemia  by 
the  false  accusation  of  heresy,  which  had  been  brought  against 
the  country.  They  finally  pledged  themselves  to  defend  by 
all  means  the  principles  contained  in  their  declaration,  and 
resolved  that  a  committee  of  three — consisting  of  two  Bohemian 
and  one  Moravian  noblemen — should  be  intrusted  with  the 
organisation  of  the  defence  of  the  country,  should  it  be  at- 
tacked. The  confederated  nobles  invited  King  Venceslas  to 
join  them,  but  in  consideration  of  his  brother,  whom  he  feared 
even  more  than  he  hated  him,  he  declined,  probably  against 
the  advice  of  the  good  Queen  Sophia.  Soon  afterwards  the 
lords  favourable  to  the  cause  of  Rome,  who  were  not  numerous, 

1  Known  as  "  Pactio  multorum  baronum  Bohemiae  et  Moraviae  de  tuenda 
libera  verbi  Dei  praedicatione  contemnendisque  excommunicationibus  in- 
justis  "  (Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  590-595). 


340  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

but  among  whom  were  some  of  the  most  powerful  nobles,  also 
formed  a  confederacy  whose  members  pledged  themselves  to 
continue  obedient  to  the  universal  church  and  to  the  council. 
Sigismund  at  this  moment  displayed  a  great  literary 
activity,  perhaps  still  hoping  to  avert  war  with  Bohemia.  He 
had  left  Constance  for  a  time  and  proceeded  to  Paris,  from 
where  he  sent  two  letters  to  Bohemia,  both  dated  March  21, 
1416.1  The  one  was  addressed  to  the  utraquist  nobles.  As 
communion  in  the  two  kinds  was  one  of  the  principal  tenets 
-of  the  national  party  in  Bohemia,  they  began  at  this  time  to 
be  generally  known  as  utraquists.  The  letter  certainly  bears 
witness  to  the  excessive  perfidy  and  falseness  of  Sigismund,  on 
which  most  historians  have  not  laid  sufficient  stress.  Sigis- 
mund began  by  stating  that  he  deeply  regretted  that  the 
nobles  had  acted  in  opposition  to  the  authority  of  his  dearly 
beloved  brother  Venceslas,  who  could  not  approve  of  a  con- 
federation among  the  nobles  of  his  realm  formed  without  his 
consent.  He  further  declared  that  had  Hus  not  arrived  at 
jConstance  before  him,  but  appeared  in  his  train,  matters  might 
lhave  turned  out  differently.  This  statement  can  hardly  have 
,  greatly  impressed  the  Bohemians,  who  knew  that  next  to  the 
Bishop  of  Litomysl  and  the  spies  in  his  pay,  no  one  was  more 
responsible  for  the  execution  of  Hus  than  Sigismund  himself. 
Sigismund's  words  overheard  by  Mladenovic 2  stating  that 
even  should  Hus  recant,  he  should  not  be  allowed  to  return  to 
his  country,  had  already  become  widely  known.  The  King  of 
Hungary  ended  his  letter  by  informing  the  Bohemians  that  as 
even  the  princes  who  had  previously  adhered  to  Peter  de  Luna 
(Benedict  XIII.)  now  recognised  the  authority  of  the  council, 
Bohemia  would  incur  great  danger,  should  its  representatives 
venture  to  resist  the  entire  power  and  authority  of  the  Roman 
Church.  On  the  same  day  Sigismund  addressed  a  letter  to 
the  Romanist  nobles  of  Bohemia,  and  particularly  to  Conrad, 

1  Both  these  letters  are  printed  by  Palacky,  Documenta,  pp.  609-615. 

2  See  Chapter  VIII. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  34I 

Archbishop  of  Prague,  and  John,  Bishop  of  Litomysl,  who 
were  their  most  prominent  representatives.  He  praised  their 
devotion  to  the  Roman  Church  and  entreated  them  to  con- 
tinue faithful  to  it.  About  this  time,1  Sigismund  also  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  his  sister-in-law,  Queen  Sophia  of  Bohemia. 
He  informed  her  that  he  had  heard  to  his  great  regret  that 
many  in  the  Bohemian  realm  had  been  infected  by  execrable 
crime  and  the  perversity  of  error,  and  casting  from  them  the 
seamless  coat  of  Christ,  which  the  regeneration  of  holy  baptism 
had  conferred  on  them,  had  succumbed  like  men  walking  in 
darkness  and  in  the  shadow  of  death  to  the  seductions  of  vile- 
ness  and  malice.  A  great  outcry,  not  without  sorrow,  had 
therefore  arisen  at  the  holy  council  of  Constance,  because  of 
the  rumour  which  ever  became  stronger  and  more  frequent, 
that  in  these  lands  (Bohemia  and  Moravia)  the  clearness  of 
piety  had  been  overclouded  and  the  worship  of  the  divine  name 
had  been  mercilessly  mocked.  Sigismund  then  expressed 
hopes  that  the  queen  would  pluck  this  deadly  herb  (of  heresy) , 
which  weakened  the  harvest  of  blessings,  from  her  fields.  He 
ended  by  referring  to  the  proceedings  against  the  queen  and 
Venceslas  which  were  being  discussed  at  Constance.  He 
again  begged  her  to  use  her  influence  to  extirpate  heresies. 
Should  she  act  otherwise  he  feared  that  punishment  on  the 
part  of  the  council  and  the  apostolical  see,  which  he  had 
hitherto  prevented  by  interceding  against  the  continuation  of 
the  legal  proceedings,  would  now  soon  become  imminent. 
This  letter,  written  in  the  turgid  style  which  Sigismund  affected, 
is  yet  another  proof  of  the  insincerity  which  had  become  a 
second  nature  to  him.  Sigismund  always  acted  entirely  in 
union  with  the  council,  over  which  he  indeed  exercised  com- 
plete control.  Whether  Queen  Sophia,  who  as  her  letters  to 
Pope  John  XXIII.  and  the  College  of  Cardinals  prove,  was  by 
no  means  deficient  in  penmanship,  answered  this  letter  is  not 

1  The  letter  is  undated.     It  is  printed  by  Caro,  Aus  der  Kanzlei  Kaiser 
Sigismunds,  pp.  55-58. 


342  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

known  to  us.  The  council  also  attempted  to  use  its  influence 
to  strengthen  the  Romanists  and  at  the  same  time  vehemently 
reviled  the  national  party.  In  a  letter  which  was  sent  to  the 
papal  nobles  a  few  days  after  Sigismund's  two  letters,  the 
council  stated  that  Satan,  the  ancient  enemy  of  the  human 
race,  who  wandering  and  roving  round  the  world  does  not 
cease  to  seek  out  those  to  whom  he  can  communicate  the 
poison  of  his  damnation,  had  so  greatly  inebriated  Wycliffe 
of  damned  memory,  then  Hus  and  other  sectators  with  the 
chalice  of  Babylon,  that  they  had  wretchedly  spurned  the 
doctrines  of  the  holy  fathers  and  turned  their  minds  to  vanities 
and  false  madness.  The  letter  then  mentioned  with  regret 
that  in  the  kingdom  of  Bohemia  and  the  marquisate  of  Moravia 
many  men,  eminent  through  their  noble  birth,  had  damnably 
conspired  against  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Catholic  faith.  The 
most  important  part  of  the  letter  was  the  last  one,  in  which 
the  council  announced  a  decision  that  greatly  envenomed  the 
already  perilous  situation.  The  council  stated  that  they  had 
appointed  as  legate  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia  John,  Bishop  of 
Litomysl,  a  fervent  defender  of  the  Catholic  faith,  whom  they 
had  chosen  among  thousands.  The  nobles  were  begged  to 
assist  him  in  suppressing  heresy  in  their  countries.1  This 
appointment  of  John  the  "  iron,"  the  arch-enemy  of  Hus  and 
of  the  national  party,  signified  throwing  down  the  gauntlet  to 
Bohemia.  It  is  but  fair  to  suppose  that  many  moderate- 
minded  members  of  the  council  had  no  such  an  intention. 
The  absolute  ignorance  of  Bohemian  affairs,  which  was  as 
frequent  then  as  it  is  now,  is  no  doubt  their  excuse. 

While  this  diplomatic  campaign,  which  I  have  here  only 
been  able  briefly  to  outline,  was  proceeding,  the  Bohemians 
had  already  appealed  to  force,  though  actual  warfare  only 
began  considerably  later.  Though  the  doctrine  of  the  neces- 
sity— in  distinction  from  the  admissibility — of  communion  in 
the  two  kinds  had  only  been  recognised  by  Hus  at  the  end  of 

1  Abridged  from  PaJacky,  Documenta,  p.  616. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  343 

his  life,  great  importance  was  attached  to  it  by  the  Bohemians, 
whose  symbol  the  chalice  became.  When  on  the  news  of  the' 
execution  of  Hus  tumults  broke  out  in  Prague,  many  priests 
who  refused  to  administer  communion  in  the  two  kinds  were 
driven  from  the  city,  and  their  houses  plundered,  while  utra- 
quist  priests  took  their  places.  The  estates  of  wealthy  prelates 
also  did  not  escape.  The  estates  of  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl 
were  seized  by  neighbouring  lords  of  the  national  party,  and 
the  "  iron  "  bishop  was  thus,  as  Palacky  remarks  with  not 
unnatural  bitterness,  relieved  for  a  time  of  that  care  of  worldly 
goods  which  had  hitherto  so  exclusively  occupied  his  mind. 
The  breach  between  Bohemia  and  the  Western  Church  was 
necessarily  widened  by  the  appointment  of  the  Bishop  of 
Litomysl  as  legate  of  the  council.  The  Bohemians  became 
ever  more  inclined  to  establish  a  national  church  in  their 
country.  The  covenant  concluded  by  the  Bohemian  nobles 
had  already  pointed  to  the  university  as  an  authority  in 
religious  matters.  This  principle  was  now  generally  accepted, 
particularly  as  church-reformers  were  already  beginning  to 
spread  doctrines  that  had  never  been  taught  by  Hus.  On  the 
suggestion  of  Master  Jacobellus,  the  principal  theologians  of 
the  university  met  in  the  so-called  great  college  on  August  9, 
1417,  and  formulated  the  Hussite  doctrine  in  the  following 
four  articles : * 

I.  The  word  of  God  shall  in  the  kingdom  of  Bohemia  be 
freely  and  without  impediment  proclaimed  and  preached  by 
Christian  priests. 

II.  The  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  God  shall  in  the 
two  kinds,  that  is  in  bread  and  wine,  be  freely  administered  to 

1  These  articles  are  the  famed  articles  of  Prague,  which  later  became  the 
foundation  of  the  compacts.  Dr.  Dvorsky,  in  a  study  which  he  sent  me  just 
before  his  recent  death,  attributes  them  to  the  year  14 17,  though  they  only 
became  known  during  the  siege  of  Prague  by  Sigismund  in  1420.  Dr. 
Dvorsky's  conjecture  has  much  probability.  It  seems  unlikely  that  this 
confession  of  faith  should  have  been  suddenly  developed  during  the  excite- 
ment of  a  siege.  Dr.  Dvorsky  also  quotes  references  to  the  articles  which 
are  of  an  earlier  date  than  1420. 


344  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

all  faithful  Christians  according  to  the  order  and  teaching  of 
our  Saviour. 

III.  The  priests  and  monks,  according  to  secular  law, 
possess  great  worldly  wealth  in  opposition  to  the  teaching  of 
Christ.     Of  this  wealth  they  shall  be  deprived. 

IV.  All  mortal  sins,  particularly  those  that  are  public,  as 
well  as  all  disorders  opposed  to  God's  law,  shall  in  all  classes x 
be  suppressed  by  those  whose  office  it  is  to  do  so.  All  evil  and 
untruthful  rumours  2  shall  be  suppressed  for  the  good  of  the 
commonwealth,  the  kingdom  and  the  nation.3 

These  articles  contain  the  pith  of  the  Hussite  teaching, 
and  on  them  were  founded  the  compacts  by  which  the  Roman 
see  for  a  time  accepted  at  least  a  part  of  the  demands  of  the 
Bohemians.  Though  according  to  Dr.  Dvorsky's  conjecture, 
which  I  have  adopted,  the  origin  of  the  articles  dates  as  far 
back  as  1417,  they  only  became  generally  known  when  they 
were  presented  to  Sigismund  and  his  German  allies  during  the 
siege  of  Prague. 

Unfortunately  for  the  cause  of  church-reform,  discord  soon 
broke  out  among  the  Hussites,  as  all  members  of  the  national 
party  soon  began  to  be  called.  A  considerable  party — soon  to 
be  known  as  the  Taborites — in  direct  contradiction  with  the 
teaching  of  Hus,  began  at  an  early  period  to  reject  all  sacra- 
ments except  baptism  and  communion,  the  existence  of  purga- 
tory, and  many  rites  and  regulations  of  the  Roman  Church. 
Though  the  dauntless  and  unrivalled  bravery  of  the  Taborites 
contributed  largely  to  the  brilliant  victories  of  the  Bohemians, 
yet  in  these  dissensions  lay  the  germ  of  the  future  downfall  of 
the  country.     The   fatal  scission  among  the   Hussites  fore- 

1  The  Bohemian  word  is  "  stav,"  which  could  in  mediaeval  phraseology 
be  translated  by  "  estate." 

*  This  principally  referred  to  the  statement  frequently  made  by  the 
Germans  that  Bohemia  was  a  heretical  country. 

3  Brezova,  in  his  full  version  of  the  articles,  gives  after  each  of  them 
lengthy  quotations  from  scripture  and  the  fathers  to  support  them.  These 
may  have  been  added  when  the  articles  were  presented  to  the  Germans 
in  1420. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  345 

shadows  already  the  fateful  battle  of  Lipan,  and  dimly  even 
the  more  fateful  battle  of  the  Bila  Hora,1  where  Bohemian 
freedom  and  independence  perished.  As  all  churches,  even 
those  where  the  utraquist  rites  were  observed,  were  closed  to 
the  Taborites,  they  began  to  assemble  in  large  numbers  in  the 
fields  and  on  mountains.  Lawrence  of  Brezova,  the  foremost 
among  the  historians  of  the  Hussite  war,  writes: 2  "  In  the 
year  1419  the  priests  and  preachers  of  Scripture  who  favoured 
the  teaching  of  Hus  and  communion  in  the  two  kinds,  who 
were  then  called  Wycliffites  or  Hussites,  and  with  them  people 
of  both  sexes  from  all  parts  of  Bohemia,  both  from  towns  and 
villages,  began  to  assemble  on  a  hill  near  Bechyn,  to  which 
they  gave  the  name  of  Tabor.  The  priests  carried  the 
eucharist  before  them,3  and  particularly  on  feast  days  ad- 
ministered the  sacrament  to  the  faithful  with  great  reverence ; 
for  the  enemies  of  communion  in  the  two  kinds  prevented  the 
common  people  from  receiving  the  communion  in  that  fashion 
in  any  church  of  that  neighbourhood.  On  the  day  of  St.  Mary 
Magdalene,4  a  large  number  of  people  of  both  sexes,  and  many 
little  children,  more  than  40,000  people  from  all  parts  of  the 
kingdom,  assembled  on  this  hill  and  with  great  fervour  received 
the  sacrament  of  the  body  of  God  and  of  the  blood  of  God, 
according  to  the  order  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  preserved  by 
the  primitive  church.  Then  King  Venceslas  was  greatly  dis- 
turbed, fearing  that  they  would  put  in  his  place  Nicholas  of 
Hus,5  whom  he  had  exiled  from  Prague  because  he  had,  accom- 
panied by  a  large  crowd  of  men,  who,  however,  were  unarmed, 
addressed  him  near  the  Church  of  St.  Apollinaris,  begging  him 
to  grant  freely  communion  in  both  kinds  to  adults  and 
children." 

The  Nicholas  of  Hus  here  mentioned  by  Brezova  had  been 

1  i.e.  White  Mountain. 

1  pp.  344-345  of  Dr.  Goll's  edition. 

3  This  custom  became  general  during  the  Hussite  wars. 

4  July  22. 

s  Contrary  to  what  has  often  been  written  he  was  no  relation  of  Master 
John  Hus. 


346  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

one  of  King  Venceslas's  courtiers,  but  had  been  banished  from 
the  court  because  he  had  at  the  head  of  a  large  band  of  men 
appealed  to  the  king  requesting  him  to  grant  a  general  per- 
mission to  receive  communion  in  the  two  kinds.  By  a  decree 
of  Venceslas  religious  services  according  to  the  utraquist  rites 
had  been  limited  to  three  churches  in  Prague.  It  is  uncertain 
whether  Nicholas  of  Hus,  as  stated  by  Brezova,  intended  to 
seize  the  crown  of  Bohemia,  but  it  is  certain  that  in  the  last 
months  of  his  life  Venceslas  lost  all  his  previous  popularity 
with  the  Bohemian  people.  A  weak,  though  well-meaning 
man,  he  had  now  definitely  to  decide  whether  he  would  throw 
in  his  lot  with  his  people  and  resolutely  face  Sigismund  and 
his  numerous  allies,  or  whether  he  would  aid  his  treacherous 
younger  brother  in  crushing  the  national  movement  and  re- 
conquering Bohemia.  Finally  Venceslas,  intimidated  by  the 
constant  threats  of  his  brother,  frightened  also  by  the  demo- 
cratic character  of  the  Taborite  movement,  determined  to  apply 
to  Sigismund  for  aid,  and  to  invite  him  to  Bohemia. 

Before  the  Taborites  had  taken  any  further  steps,  and  only 
a  week  after  their  great  meeting,  events  at  Prague  brought 
matters  to  a  crisis.  The  Premonstratensian  monk,  John  of 
|  Zelivo,  an  enthusiastic  Hussite  and  a  man  of  great  eloquence 
and  ambition,  had  acquired  great  popularity  among  the 
citizens  of  Prague.  When  preaching  on  July  30  in  the  Church 
St.  Mary  of  the  snow — one  of  those  that  had  been  given  over 
to  the  utraquists — he  spoke  strongly  of  the  oppression  of  the 
faithful,  referring  to  the  fact  that  several  Hussites  had  been 
imprisoned  by  order  of  the  German  councillors  of  the  new 
town,  and  complaining  also  that  the  utraquists  were  excluded 
from  almost  all  the  churches  of  the  city.  The  faithful  then 
proceeded  to  the  town  hall  led  by  Zelivo.  On  their  way  they 
passed  the  church  of  St.  Stephen  and  attempted  to  enter  it. 
The  priests  had  closed  it  on  the  approach  of  the  heretics,  and 
a  struggle  took  place  in  which  some  were  wounded  on  both 
sides   and   the   church   was  considerably  damaged.     Matters 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS 


347 


became  more  serious  when  the  procession  reached  the  town 
hall  of  the  new  town,1  and  demanded  the  liberation  of  the 
Hussites  who  were  imprisoned  there.  In  answer  stones  were 
thrown  at  them  from  the  windows  of  the  town  hall  by  the 
German  councillors  who  were  strong  opponents  of  the  national 
movement.  One  of  the  stones  struck  John  of  Zelivo,  who,  as 
had  become  customary,  carried  the  sacrament  in  a  monstrance 
before  the  procession.  The  people,  infuriated  by  this  act  of 
sacrilege,  as  they  considered  it,  attacked  and  stormed  the 
town  hall.  They  found  a  leader  in  John  Zizka  of  Trocnov, . 
who,  like  Nicholas  of  Hus,  had  been  a  courtier  of  King  Ven- 
ceslas.  The  town-councillors  were  thrown  from  the  windows, 
and  those  who  survived  the  fall  were  killed  by  the  people  who 
were  assembled  in  the  market-place  below.  When  the  news 
reached  King  Venceslas  he  was  seized  with  an  apoplectic  fit, 
and  on  August  16  a  second  fit  ended  his  life. 

The  death  of  the  king  left  Bohemia  in  a  state  of  complete 
uncertainty.  Sigismund  was  undoubtedly  the  legitimate  heir 
to  the  throne,  and  even  among  the  utraquists,  particularly 
among  the  nobles  belonging  to  that  party,  some  were  at  first 
ready  to  recognise  him  as  their  sovereign,  should  he  conform 
to  the  teaching  of  what  had  already  become  the  national 
church.  Treacherous  as  he  always  was,  Sigismund  had 
hitherto  generally  concealed  his  blind  adherence  to  Rome  and 
his  hatred  of  the  Bohemian  people.  He  had  even,  on  several 
occasions,  expressed  his  regret  that  Hus  had  been  executed, 
and  stated  that  this  would  not  have  occurred  had  Hus  arrived 
at  Constance  with  the  king,  and  after  having  received  the 
letter  of  safe-conduct.  The  great  mass  of  the  Bohemian 
people,  with  that  instinctive  intuition  that  sometimes  cha- 
racterises the  masses,  always  distrusted  Sigismund,  to  whom 
they  rightly  attributed  the  responsibility  for  the  death  of  the 
revered  master  Hus.  The  eloquent  priest  John  of  Zelivo, 
who  had  at  that  time  great  influence  over  the  people  of  Prague, 

1  In  the  present  Karlovo  Namesti  (Charles  Square). 


348  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

denounced  Sigismund  in  apocalyptic  language,  calling  him 
the  fiery  seven-headed  dragon  of  the  revelation.1  Immediately 
after  the  death  of  Venceslas  rioting  broke  out  in  Prague,  many 
churches  were  destroyed,  and  all  priests  who  refused  to  accept 
the  utraquist  rites  were  expelled  from  the  city.  With  them 
most  of  the  German  inhabitants  left  the  town.  They  were 
almost  all  adherents  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  bitter  enemies 
of  the  national  party,  which  they  believed  to  be  opposed  to 
the  undue  predominance  which  they  had  obtained  in  Bohemia. 
Sigismund  was  unable  to  proceed  to  Bohemia  immediately 
after  his  brother's  death,  as  urgent  affairs  required  his  presence 
in  Hungary.  He  determined  to  adopt  a  temporising  policy, 
as  long  as  he  was  unable  to  enter  Bohemia  with  an  overwhelm- 
ing armed  force.  He  therefore  appointed  as  regent  Queen 
Sophia,  whom  her  known  sympathy  with  the  Hussite  cause 

E rendered  very  popular.  As  her  coadjutor  he  named  the 
upreme  Burgrave  Cenek  of  Wartenberg,  an  ambitious  noble- 
lan  who  was  in  matters  of  religion  entirely  guided  by  what 
he  believed  to  be  his  personal  interest.  Tranquillity  returned 
to  Prague  for  a  short  time,  but  the  action  of  the  Taborites  soon 
led  to  new  and  graver  disturbances.  At  a  great  meeting  on 
the  Tabor  hill  on  the  day  of  St.  Venceslas  (September  28,  1419) 
the  Taborites  resolved  to  march  on  Prague.  Queen  Sophia, 
informed  of  their  intention,  hurriedly  summoned  a  large  force 
of  German  mercenaries  to  her  aid.  Infuriated  by  the  presence 
of  these  enemies  of  their  country  and  their  race,  the  whole  city 
of  Prague  rose  in  arms.  Fierce  fighting  began  in  all  parts  of 
the  city.2  Aided  by  the  Taborite  forces  which,  led  by  Nicholas 
of  Hus  and  Zizka  of  Trocnov,  had  meanwhile  arrived  at  Prague, 
the  citizens  obtained  possession  of  the  Vysehrad,  where  the 

1  Zelivo  referred  to  the  seven  crowns  which  Sigismund  wore  and  also 
to  the  new  order  of  knighthood  named  "  the  dragon  "  which  he  had  just 
instituted. 

2  It  is  beyond  the  purpose  of  this  work  to  give  an  account  of  the  many- 
battles  and  sieges  of  the  Hussite  wars.  I  have  given  some  account  of  them 
in  my  Bohemia,  a  Historical  Sketch.  Some  notice  of  the  battles  in  and  around 
Prague  will  also  be  found  in  my  Prague  (mediaeval  town  series). 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  349 

defenders,  King  Venceslas's  former  bodyguard,  composed  of 
friends  of  the  national  party,  offered  little  resistance. JfAn 
attack  on  the  Hradcany  castle,  however,  was  unsuccessful. 
In  the  course  of  this  prolonged  street-fighting,  of  which  the 
contemporary  chroniclers  give  a  vivid  account,  a  large  part  of 
the  city  was  destroyed.  The  citizens  began  to  desire  peace, 
and  through  the  mediation  of  Cenek  of  Wartemberg  a  truce 
was  concluded.  The  citizens  of  Prague  again  surrendered  to 
the  royal  troops  the  Vysehrad  castle;  the  utraquist  nobles,  as 
whose  spokesman  Wartemberg  acted,  promised  to  support 
their  countrymen  in  their  demand  of  independence  for  the 
Bohemian  church.  The  Taborites,  who  disapproved  of  this 
compromise,  left  Prague  and  proceeded  to  Plzen  and  then  to 
the  Tabor  hill,  where  their  first  meetings  had  been  held.  They 
here  built  the  city  of  Tabor,  which  became  their  stronghold  up 
to  the  time  of  their  final  downfall. 

The  not  very  favourable  terms  of  this  armistice,  the  retreat 
of  the  Taborites,  and  the  expectation  of  Sigismund's  arrival 
caused  a  short-lived  Romanist  reaction  in  Bohemia.  The 
miners  of  Kutna  Hora,  strong  adherents  of  the  Roman  Church, 
seized  many  utraquist  priests  and  other  Hussites  and  threw 
them  into  the  shaft  of  one  of  their  mines,  to  which  they  had 
in  derision  given  the  name  of  Tabor.  Many  Romanists  and 
Germans  returned  to  Prague  and  several  utraquist  priests 
were  expelled  from  their  churches.  The  Germans  greatly  re- 
joiced, and  as  a  contemporary  chronicler *  tells  us,  "  smiled  and 
clapped  their  hands,  saying  now  these  heretical  Hussites  and 
Wyclimtes  will  perish  and  there  will  be  an  end  of  them." 

Sigismund  had  meanwhile  arrived  in  the  lands  of  the 
Bohemian  crown,  and  at  Brno 2  received  the  envoys  of  the  cities 
of  Prague.  They  protested  of  their  thorough  loyalty  to  their 
new  sovereign,  and  begged  only  to  be  allowed  to  continue  to 
follow  the  rites  of  the  utraquist  church.  The  king  returned  an 
evasive  answer.     He  merely  stated  that  he  intended  to  rule 

1  Lawrence  of  Brezova,  p.  354.  2  In  German,  Briinn. 


350  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

according  to  the  example  of  his  father,  Charles  IV.,  whose 
memory  was  still  revered  in  Bohemia.  He  demanded  that  all 
chains  and  barricades  that  had  been  erected  in  Prague  during 
the  recent  street-fighting  should  be  removed,  and  that  the 
Romanist  priests  and  monks  should  no  longer  be  molested. 
Sigismund  did  not,  as  had  probably  been  expected,  proceed 
immediately  to  Prague.  Disliking  and  distrusting  all  com- 
promises, he  was  determined  to  appear  in  Bohemia  only  at  the 
head  of  so  large  a  military  force  that  the  country  would  be 
absolutely  at  his  mercy.  Sigismund  believed  that  such  a  force 
could  most  easily  be  raised  by  recurring  to  the  time-honoured 
expedient  of  proclaiming  a  crusade.  The  term  crusade, 
originally  employed  to  designate  warlike  expeditions  under- 
taken to  free  Palestine  from  Mahomedan  rule,  had  long  been 
misused  to  describe  wars  undertaken  from  worldly  and  often 
base  motives.  The  last  crusade  had  been  the  one  undertaken 
by  the  subsequently  deposed  Pope  John  XXIII.  against  his 
enemy  the  King  of  Naples.1  On  the  advice  of  Sigismund, 
Pope  Martin  V.,  whom  the  council  of  Constance  had  in  1418 
chosen  as  pope,  proclaimed  a  crusade  against  Bohemia  on 
March  1,  1420.  In  this  document 2  the  new  pope  declared  that 
Sigismund,  his  beloved  son  in  Christ,  wishing  to  deserve  the 
high  dignity  conferred  on  him  by  providence,  had  determined 
to  extirpate  the  deadly  poison  of  the  heresy  of  Wyclifntes  and 
Hussites,  and  that  he  (the  pope)  greatly  extolled  this  plan  of 
the  king  and  prayed  for  its  success  with  eyes  uplifted  to 
heaven,  for  whose  advantage  this  matter  was  undertaken. 
The  pope  therefore  entreated  and  exhorted  all  kings,  dukes, 
marquises,  princes,  counts  and  barons,  potentates,3  captains, 
magistrates  and  other  officials  and  their  representatives,  also 
all  communities  of  cities,  castles,  fortresses,  villages  and  other 
localities,  and  all  who  were  zealous  for  the  name  and  fame  of 

1  See  Chapter  V. 

2  Printed  by  Palacky,  Urkundliche  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  der  Hiissitenkriege, 
pp.  17-30.     I  give  above  only  a  short  extract  from  this  strange  document. 

3  The  Italian  "  podesta  "  is  probably  meant. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  35i 

Christianity,  strongly  and  manfully  to  undertake  the  exter- 
mination of  the  Wycliffites,  Hussites,  other  heretics  and  all 
who  favoured,  abetted  and  defended  them.  The  document 
ended  with  a  promise  of  plenary  indulgence  to  all  who  should 
take  part  in  the  coming  crusade. 

This  proclamation  caused  intense  fury  in  Bohemia,  which 
became  yet  greater  when  the  people  were  informed  of  the  I 
cruel  death  which  one  of  their  fellow-citizens  had  suffered  at 
Breslau  by  order  of  Sigismund,  who,  not  feeling  as  yet  strong 
enough  to  crush  Bohemia,  had  proceeded  to  Silesia  from  Brno. 
John  Krasa,  a  wealthy  citizen  of  Prague,  was  accused  of  having 
spoken  with  disapproval  of  the  sentence  passed  by  the  council 
of  Constance  on  Hus,  and  of  having  maintained  the  necessity 
of  communion  in  the  two  kinds.  By  order  of  Sigismund  he 
was  placed  before  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  which  condemned 
him  to  be  dragged  by  horses  through  the  streets  of  Breslau. 
The  cruel  sentence  was  carried  out  on  March  15,  1420.  Krasa 
endured  his  martyrdom  with  great  courage  and  fortitude.1 
Many  of  the  nobles  of  Bohemia,  including  the  supreme  Bur- 
grave  Cenek  of  Wartemberg,  were  present  at  the  death  of 
Krasa,  and  were  greatly  incensed  by  the  cruelty  of  Sigismund. 
Contemporary  chroniclers  attribute  largely  to  this  occurrence 
the  defection  of  Wartemberg  from  the  cause  of  Sigismund, 
which  took  place  shortly  afterwards. 

The  numerous  bands  of  so-called  crusaders  now  began  to 
march  on  Bohemia  from  all  directions.  Sigismund  himself 
crossed  the  frontier  about  the  beginning  of  May.  The  news 
that  he  received  on  entering  Bohemia  was  by  no  means  favour- 
able.    Cenek   of  Wartemberg  had,  on   April  17,  joined   the 

1  Brezova  refers  to  the  death  of  Krasa  in  very  pathetic  words.  He  writes : 
(Krasa)  "  in  fide  sancta  permansit  ac  in  sancto  perstitit  proposito  tamquam 
miles  strenuus  ac  athletha  domini  fortissimus;  orans  namque  pro  suis  inimicis 
omnes  eorum  blasphemias,  hereticationes,  probra  ac  derisiones,  nee  non  et 
penas  sustinuit  durissimas  magistri  sui  ac  pastoris  Jesu  domini  exemplo,  pro 
veritate  evangelica  tamquam  ovis  ductus  ad  victimam.  Tandemque  spiritu 
exalato  ad  dominum  in  spe  bona  migrare  meruit  ac  palmam  martirii  adipisci, 
quod  et  nobis  prestare  dignetur  Deus  trinus  et  unus  in  secula  benedictus 
seculorum  "  (pp.  358-359). 


352  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

national  party  and  concluded  an  alliance  with  the  cities  of 
Prague.  In  a  proclamation  published  on  April  20,  he 
enumerated  the  grievances  of  the  Bohemians  against  "  the 
Roman  and  Hungarian  King  Sigismund,  who  had  not  been 
crowned  as  King  of  Bohemia."  The  proclamation  ended  by 
declaring  that  no  Bohemian  should  under  penalty  of  losing 
his  honour,  his  fortune,  and  his  life  fail  to  take  part  in  the 
defence  of  the  country.  General,  national  and  religious  enthu- 
siasm prevailed  in  Bohemia,  but  it  unfortunately  led  to  de- 
]  plorable  excesses.  The  Hussite  movement  for  a  time  assumed 
1  an  iconoclastic  character.  Many  ancient  monasteries,  monu- 
ments of  the  finest  ancient  Bohemian  architecture,  were 
destroyed  both  at  Prague  and  in  other  parts  of  the  country. 
Many  monks  and  nuns  were  treated  with  great  cruelty. 
Though  some  writers  have  attempted  to  attenuate  these  out- 
rages, they  cannot  be  sufficiently  blamed  both  for  their  base 
brutality  and  their  political  ineptitude.  In  a  moment  of 
greatest  peril  Bohemia  thus  alienated  many  frends.  Cenek 
J  of  Wartemberg,  who  held  the  castles  of  Hradcany  and  Vyse- 
hrad,  concluded  a  truce  with  Sigismund,  stipulating  only  that 
the  religious  services  on  his  estates  should  continue  to  he  held 
according  to  the  utraquist  rites.  The  citizens  of  Prague  also 
endeavoured  to  come  to  an  agreement  with  Sigismund.  The 
King  of  Hungary,  after  crossing  the  frontier,  first  attacked  the 
city  of  Kralove  Hradec,1  which  surrendered  after  a  short  re- 
sistance. From  here  he  marched  to  Kutna  Hora,  the  centre  of 
a  German  and  Romanist  population.  It  was  here  that  he 
received  the  envoys  of  the  cities  of  Prague.  He  had  found  at 
Kutna  Hora  that  at  least  some  Bohemians  were  opposed  to 
Hussitism  and  now  believed  his  victory  certain.  He  asumed 
a  more  overbearing  manner,  and  received  the  citizens  in  a  very 
opprobrious  fashion.  He  overwhelmed  them  with  reproaches 
and  demanded  unconditional  surrender.  Informed  of  this,  the 
citizens  of  Prague,  though  they  were  the  most  moderate  of  all 

1  In  German,  Koniggratz. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  353 

utraquists,  knew  that  war  to  the  knife  was  inevitable,  and  im- 
mediately began  to  strengthen  the  fortifications  of  their  city. 
They  also,  understanding  the  folly  of  internal  dissensions  in 
face  of  a  powerful  enemy,  sent  messengers  to  Tabor  begging 
the  Taborites  "  if  they  wished  verily  to  obey  God's  word,  to 
march  to  their  aid  without  delay,  and  with  as  many  men  as 
they  could  muster."  Zizka  did  not  hesitate  for  a  moment. 
Headed  by  him  and  the  three  other  "  captains  of  the  people," 
the  Taborites,  numbering  about  six  thousand  men,  set  out  on 
the  day  the  message  had  reached  them,  and  defeating  a 
Romanist  force  which  endeavoured  to  intercept  them,  arrived 
at  Prague  on  May  20.  About  the  same  time  the  forces  of  the 
Bohemian  towns  Loun,  Slany,  and  Zatec  also  arrived  in  the 
city,  and  several  utraquist  nobles  and  knights  with  their 
followers  hurried  to  Prague  to  take  part  in  the  defence  of  the 
menaced  capital. 

Such  slight  succour  appeared  very  insufficient  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  from  all  parts  of  Europe  vast  armies  were  march- 
ing on  Prague.  Yet  the  citizens  did  not  lose  courage  for  a 
moment.  As  I  have  written  elsewhere,1  "  absolute  confidence 
in  Scripture  rendered  despondency  impossible.  A  thorough 
acquaintance  with  the  Old  Testament  is  evident  in  all  the 
contemporary  records  of  those  stirring  times.  No  man  or 
woman  of  Prague  doubted  that  the  Lord,  who  had  once  struck 
down  the  forces  of  Sennacherib,  would  now  strike  down  the 
forces  of  Sigismund." 

At  the  end  of  May  and  the  beginning  of  June  the  vast\ 
armies  of  so-called  crusaders  began  to  encircle  Prague.2  Their 
full  amount  is  stated  to  have  been  about  200,000  men.  They 
had  on  their  march  committed  terrible  depredations  and 
murders,  killing  all  Bohemians,  even  those  who  belonged  to 
the  Roman  Church.      Sigismund  at  the  end  of  May  arrived 

1  Prague,  p.  S3- 

2  For  an  account  of  the  siege  of  Prague  and  the  battles  of  the  Zizkov  and 
Vysehrad,  see  my  Bohemia,  a  Historical  Sketch,  and  Prague. 

Z 


354  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

in  the  neighbourhood  of  Prague,  where  the  castles  of  Hradcany, 
and  Vysehrad  were  still  held  by  his  adherents.  He  for  some 
time  hesitated  to  attack  the  city,  knowing  that  new  forces 
were  daily  joining  the  crusading  armies.  At  last  it  was  de- 
cided that  a  general  assault  should  take  place  on  July  14. 
Some  of  Sigismund's  German  allies  attacked  the  Vitkov — 
now  Zizkov — hill,  but  were  repulsed  with  great  loss  by  the 
Taborites,  led  by  Zizka.  Even  the  Taborite  women  took  part 
in  the  defence.  One  of  these  women  surpassed  the  men  in 
courage.  When  the  Bohemians  were  for  a  moment  obliged 
to  retreat,  she  refused  to  do  so,  saying,  "  It  is  not  beseeming 
that  a  faithful  Christian  should  give  way  to  Antichrist" x 
After  this  failure  the  attacks  on  the  other  parts  of  the  town 
were  also  abandoned.  Both  parties  hoped  by  negotiations  to 
come  to  an  agreement,  and  the  utraquist  nobles  who,  from 
dynastic  motives  had  remained  faithful  to  Sigismund,  but 
shared  the  religious  views  of  their  countrymen,  attempted 
to  act  as  mediators.  The  moment  seemed  a  favourable  one 
for  a  pacification.  The  Bohemians  had  in  the  articles  of 
Prague,  which  had  in  all  probability  been  at  least  outlined 
previously,  a  programme  that  united  all  national  parties.  As 
Mr.  Krummel 2  has  well  pointed  out,  the  differences  among 
the  Hussites  were  not  as  yet  considerable.  All  acknowledged 
the  teaching  of  Hus,  and  all  strove  for  the  same  purpose,  the 

(reformation  of  the  church  in  accordance  with  the  customs  of 
the  primitive  church.  All  Hussites  condemned  the  evils 
caused  by  the  temporal  power  granted  to  popes  and  bishops, 
the  abuse  of  indulgences,  and  the  immoral  life  led  by  the  priest- 
hood of  the  period.  All  strove  to  establish  a  truly  saintly  and 
apostolical  church  of  which  laymen  as  well  as  priests  should 
form  an  active  part.  The  views  of  Hus  were  still  fresh  in  the 
memory  of  all,  and  when  we  notice  how  greatly  discord  in- 
creased among  the  Hussites,  when  the  memory  of  the  master 

1  Brezova,  p.  388. 
2  Leopold  Krummel,  Utraquisten  und  Taboriten. 


THE  HUSSTTE  WARS  355 

grew  dimmer,  wo  realist1  what  an  irreparable  loss  to  Bohemia 
and  the  cause  of  church-reform  the  comparatively  early  death 
of  Hus  was. 

The  articles  of  Prague  were  shown  to  the  utraquist  nobles 
who  had  attempted  mediation,  and  they  strongly  approved  of 
them.  It  was,  however,  necessary  that  the  articles  should  be 
jointly  discussed  by  representatives  of  the  national  party  and 
by  opponents  of  church-reform.  Even  the  choice  of  a  meet- 
ing-place proved  difficult  because  of  the  intense  mutual  dis- 
trust. The  Hussites  in  particular,  warned  by  the  recent  fate 
of  Hus,  hesitated  to  entrust  their  safety  to  men  who  might 
possibly  plead  that  no  faith  should  be  kept  with  heretics.  All 
these  difficulties  were,  however,  surmounted,  and  it  was  de- 
cided that  a  meeting  in  the  open  air  should  take  place  in  the 
Mala  Strana  ("  small  quarter  ")  of  Prague.  The  Romanist 
representatives  were  Louis,  patriarch  of  Aquileja,  Simon  of 
Ragusa  Bishop  of  Trau,  and  several  other  dignitaries  of  the 
Roman  Church.  The  Bohemians  were  represented  by  the 
most  prominent  theologians  of  the  university,  and  several 
leaders  of  the  utraquist  and  Taborite  armies  were  also  present. 
The  principal  speakers  were  on  the  Roman  side  the  learned 
doctor  Peter  de  Vergeriis,  and  on  the  Bohemian  magister 
John  of  Pribram,  who  was  already  considered  one  of  the  most 
learned  theologians  of  the  University  of  Prague.  The  debate 
was  carried  on  with  great  decorum  and  gravity,  and  the  sub- 
jects discussed,  as  Palacky  notes  with  his  usual  acumen,  already 
foreshadowed  the  discussions  of  the  Council  of  Basel.  It  was, 
however,  impossible  to  arrive  at  an  agreement. 

Sigismund  had  retired  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Prague 
shortly  after  the  defeat  of  the  crusaders  of  Zizka's  hill,  but  his 
troops  still  garrisoned  the  castles  of  Hradcany  and  Vysehrad. 
The  last-named  castle  was  hardly  pressed  b}7  the  Hussites.  In 
the  autumn  of  the  year  1420,  Sigismund  made  an  attempt  to 
relieve  the  garrison.  He  was,  however,  defeated  in  a  very 
sanguinary  battle  fought  between  the  village  of  Pankrac  and 


356  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

the  castle  of  the  Vysehrad  on  November  2.  Sigismund  now 
i  left  Bohemia  and  for  a  time  abandoned  all  attempts  to  con- 
quer the  country.  The  Hussites,  both  those  of  the  utraquist 
party — who  now  were  often  known  as  the  "  Praguers,"  as  the 
capital  was  their  principal  centre — and  those  who  belonged 
to  the  Taborite  party,  now  assumed  the  offensive  and  obtained 
possession  of  almost  the  whole  of  Bohemia.  Many  of  the 
nobles,  among  them  Cenek  of  Wartemberg,  also  now  formally 
adopted  the  Hussite  cause. 

At  this  moment  when  Bohemia  was  at  least  for  a  time  free 
from  the  obnoxious  presence  of  Sigismund,  it  is  interesting  to 
notice  briefly  the  development  of  the  doctrines  of  Hus  in  the 
country.  The  moderate  or  utraquist  party  among  the 
Hussites,  who  were  known  also  as  Calixtines  or  Praguers,  was 
in  accordance  with  the  Church  of  Rome  on  most  points,  as  had 
indeed  been  the  case  with  Hus  himself.  The  opposition  of 
the  utraquists  was  directed  against  the  Roman  hierarchy,  not 
against  the  ancient  dogmas  of  the  Catholic  Church.  They 
accepted  fully  the  teaching  of  the  Roman  Church  with  regard 
to  the  sacrament,  but  they  maintained  that  communion 
should  be  administered  to  all  in  the  two  kinds.  They  de- 
clared, as  I  have  previously  mentioned,  that  the  distinction 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  had  established  in  this  respect 
between  priests  and  laymen  was  unjust,  and  not  founded  on 
the  teaching  of  Scripture.  It  may  also  be  said  that  they 
attached  more  importance  to  the  study  of  the  Bible  than 
priests  usually  did  at  that  period.  This  had  indeed  been  a 
characteristic  of  the  Bohemian  church-reformers  from  the 
beginning  of  the  movement.  The  utraquists  allowed  the 
adornment  of  churches  by  pictures  and  statues,  but  sternly 
opposed  the  exaggerated  veneration  of  such  images,  which 
had  at  that  period  become  absolute  idolatry.  The  calixtines 
strongly  disapproved  of  the  possession  of  secular  property  by 
the  priesthood,  as  it  led,  according  to  their  views,  to  im- 
morality and  the  neglect  of  ecclesiastical  duties.     They  wished 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  357 

that  their  priests,  to  whom  marriage  was  permitted,  should 
differ  as  little  as  possible  from  the  rest  of  the  faithful,  and 
sternly  reproved  the  exaggerated  and  sometimes  almost  sacri- 
legious veneration  which  the  Roman  priests  at  this  period 
claimed.  Following  here  also  the  example  of  Hus,  the  Calix- 
tines  endeavoured  to  extend  the  use  of  the  national  language 
in  the  services  of  the  church,  though  they  did  not  in  this 
respect  go  as  far  as  the  Taborites.  Though  opposed  to  Rome 
on  some  points,  the  Calixtines  attached  great  importance  to 
the  apostolical  succession  of  their  priests  and  their  intention 
undoubtedly  was  to  found  a  national  Bohemian  church  forming 
part  of  the  Catholic  or  universal  church.  As  previously  men- 
tioned, immediately  after  the  death  of  Hus  the  theological 
faculty  of  the  University  of  Prague  had  by  the  Hussites  been 
recognised  as  the  authority  on  matters  of  religion.  When  in; 
142 1  Conrad  of  Vechta,  archbishop  of  Prague,  accepted  the 
four  articles  of  Prague,  he  naturally  became  the  head  of  the 
Calixtine  church.  After  his  death  a  consistory  became  its 
governing  body.  Among  the  first  administrators  of  this  con- 
sistory were  Mladenovic,  the  biographer  of  Hus,  and  magister 
Pribram.  The  learned  master  Jacobellus,  the  real  originator 
of  utraquism,  held  some  views  which  were  more  "  advanced,'' 
if  we  may  thus  describe  them.  His  teaching  was  on  some 
points  similar  to  that  of  the  Taborites.  Only  once  after  j 
the  death  of  Vechta  was  the  Calixtine  church  governed  by  an 
archbishop.  As  will  be  mentioned  presently,  after  the  treaty 
of  Iglau  the  estates  of  Bohemia  chose  John  of  Rokycan  as 
archbishop,  but  he  was  never  recognised  by  the  pope. 

The  position  of  the  calixtine  church  was  at  all  times  a  very  1 
difficult  one.     The  calixtines  were  confronted  by  the  bitter,  ) 
relentless  hostility  of  Rome,  which  demanded  unconditional  \ 
surrender.     Even  those  moderate  Calixtines  who  were  ready 
to  conform  to  the  Church  of  Rome  on  all  other  points,  were 
they  but  allowed  to  retain  the  use  of  the  chalice,  met  with  a 
stern  refusal,  though  this  concession  has  on  other  occasions 


358  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

been  made  by  the  Church  of  Rome.1  There  is  little  doubt  that 
in  this  case  German  influence  prevailed,  and  that  the  matter 
was  treated  from  a  political  rather  than  from  an  ecclesiastical 
standpoint.  While  the  conciliatory  efforts  of  the  Calixtines 
thus  met  with  no  success,  they  exposed  them  to  the  vehement 
enmity  of  the  extreme  church-reformers  in  Bohemia,  and  of 
the  Taborites  in  particular. 

Little  was  up  to  recently  known  of  the  Taborite  com- 
munity, and  their  own  written  documents  having  been  de- 
stroyed, all  contemporary  knowledge  of  them  has  been  derived 
from  the  works  of  their  enemies.  According  to  their  main 
principle,  the  Taborites  2  admitted  as  truth  nothing  not  con- 
tained in  Scripture,  and  they  rejected  as  false  all  the  writings 
of  the  fathers  of  the  church  which  deserved  to  be  burnt  as 
work  of  antichrist.  After  the  year  1422  the  Taborites  rejected 
'the  teaching  of  the  Roman  church  with  regard  to  the  sacra- 
ment, which  had  been  the  teaching  of  Hus  also.  They 
believed  that  after  communion,  bread  remains  bread  and 
wine,  but  that  Christ  who  is  in  heaven  is  through  His 
divine  grace  present  in  the  sacrament,  and  that  those  who 
piously  receive  communion  partake  of  His  divine  grace.  Of 
the  sacraments  the  Taborites  recognised  only  baptism,  and 
they  rejected  all  veneration  of  the  virgin  Mary  and  the 
saints.  They  also  repudiated  aural  confession.  When 
the  faithful  wished  to  confess,  the  Taborite  priests  said  to 
them:  Why  do  you  run  to  us?  We  cannot  forgive  you  your 
sins;  go  and  make  confession  to  God  Himself.  In  distinction 
from  Hus  and  the  Calixtines,  the  Taborites  rejected  the  doc- 
trine of  purgatory  and  therefore  also  the  prayers  for  the  dead. 
They  were  totally  opposed  to  the  traditional  hierarchy  of  the 
Roman  church,  declaring  that  popes  and  cardinals  were  evil 

1  For  instance,  in  the  case  of  the  Greek  uniates. 

2 1  must  here  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  Dr.  Siegmund  Winter, 
whose  admirable  Zivot  cirkevni  v.  Cechach  (Church  life  in  Bohemia),  founded 
almost  entirely  on  unprinted  documents,  contains  the  first  reliable  modern 
account  of  the  community  of  Tabor. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  359 

doers  and  instruments  of  Antichrist.  They  none  the  less  at 
one  time  chose  Nicholas  of  Pelhrimov,  one  of  their  most  learned 
divines  as  bishop.  His  powers  were,  however,  very  limited, 
and  his  position  was  similar  rather  to  that  of  the  bishops  of 
the  Bohemian  brethren — a  community  that  in  some  respects 
resembled  that  of  Tabor — than  to  that  of  the  bishops  of  the 
Roman  church.  The  political  principles  of  the  Taborites 
were  strictly  democratical.  They  acknowledged  no  differences 
of  social  rank.  All  members  of  the  community  called  each 
other  brothers  and  sisters,  and  the  organisation  was  at  first  a 
communistic  one,  though  this  did  not  continue  even  to  the  end 
of  the  short-lived  community.  The  battle  of  Lipany  in  1434 
marks  the  downfall  of  democracy  in  Bohemia,  and  with  it 
that  of  the  Taborite  community,  though  the  city  itself  was 
only  captured  in  1452  by  the  utraquist  King  George  of  Pode- 
brad,  who  established  there  the  services  of  the  utraquist  or 
Calixtine  church. 

As  was  inevitable  in  a  moment  of  general  intense  religious 
excitement,  considerable  differences  of  opinion  existed  among 
the  Taborites,  as  among  the  Calixtines.  The  best  known  of 
all  Taborites,  John  Zizka  of  Trocnov,  was  the  leader  of  a 
moderate  division,  whose  members  after  his  death  assumed 
the  name  of  Orphans.  Though  Zizka  was  an  ardent  demo- 
crat and  hated  with  undying  hatred  Sigismund,  whom  he 
rightly  considered  responsible  for  the  death  of  Hus,  his  atti- 
tude in  matters  of  religion  was  very  moderate  and  his  views 
did  not  differ  greatly  from  those  of  the  Calixtines.  His  touch- 
ing devotion  to  the  memory  of  Hus  rendered  him  unwilling  to 
accept  innovations  of  which  the  master  might  not  have  ap- 
proved. An  intermedial  position  among  the  Taborites  was] 
that  held  by  Nicholas  of  Pelhrimov,  the  bishop  of  the  com- 
munity. There  were,  however,  among  the  Taborites  also 
enthusiastic  priests  whose  fanaticism  was  often  pernicious  to 
the  cause  of  church-reform.  Such  men  were  John  of  Zelivo, 
who  has  already  been  mentioned,   and   Martin   Huska,   sur- 


360  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

named  Loquis,  who  is  described  as  a  man  of  great  eloquence. 
The  people  surnamed  him  the  "  prophet  Daniel  "  and  the 
"  angel  of  the  hosts  of  the  Lord."  Another  fanatical  preacher 
was  Peter  Kanis,  whose  teaching  was  mainly  founded  on 
chiliastic  views. 

In  connection  with  these  fanatics,  I  must,  according  to 
the  established  custom,  mention  the  sect  of  the  Adamites, 
whose  importance  has  been  enormously  exaggerated  by 
writers  hostile  to  the  cause  of  Hus.  Dr.  Nedoma l  has  indeed 
proved  that  the  Adamite  sect  had  no  connection  with  Hussi- 
jtism,  and  he  maintains  that  even  the  extreme  Taborites, 
;  Martin  Huska  and  Peter  Kanis,  cannot  in  any  way  be  rendered 
responsible  for  the  deeds  of  these  obscene  fanatics.  Dr. 
Nedoma  prints  a  letter  addressed  about  the  year  1409  to 
archbishop  Zbynek  by  master  John,  vicar  of  Chvojnov,  in 
which  the  latter  states  that  in  his  parish  the  diabolical  custom 
had  sprung  up  that  men  and  women  met  secretly  at  night  in 
the  woods  and  took  part  in  terrible  orgies,  of  which  the  worthy 
priest  states  that  he  dares  not  describe  them.  This  was,  of 
course,  some  years  before  the  beginning  of  the  Hussite  wars. 
It  should  be  added  that  the  Adamitic  movement  by  no  means 
originated  in  Bohemia.  The  forerunners  of  the  Adamites 
were  undoubtedly  the  "  turlupins  "  in  France,  and  at  the  end 
of  the  fourteenth  and  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century  we 
hear  of  similar  complaints  against  the  Adamites  in  Germany 
and  other  countries.  When  some  of  these  fanatics  settled  in 
an  island  in  the  Nezarka  river  near  Tabor  they  were  merci- 
lessly destroyed  by  Zizka.  It  would  hardly  be  necessary  to 
dwell  on  this  matter  were  it  not  that  all  enemies  of  the  Hussite 
cause  have  laid  great  stress  on  it.  Pope  Martin  V.,  when  pro- 
claiming a  crusade  against  Bohemia,  did  not  hesitate  to 
identify  the  whole  party  of  church-reform  with  the  Adamites. 
iEneas  Sylvius  also  in  his  Historia  Bohemica  has  devoted  to 

1  In  an  able  article — on  the  codex  of  Stara  Boleslav — published  in  the 
Vestnik  kral  c.  spolecnosti  nauk  (Journal  of  the  Scientific  Society)  for  1891. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  361 

them  a  chapter x  which  is  neither  edifying  nor  trustworthy. 
The  gifted  author  of  Lucretia  and  Euryalus  seems  to  have  care- 
fully preserved  all  tales  concerning  this  matter  that  were 
current  at  the  time. 

Though  the  Taborites  were  innocent  of  the  worst  accusa- 
tions brought  against  them  by  their  opponents,  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  the  more  fanatical  members  of  that  party  greatly 
injured  the  cause  of  church-reform.  Proclaiming  as  they  did 
the  approach  of  the  millennium,  and  denouncing  as  the  imagin- 
ing of  Antichrist  all  secular  and  ecclesiastical  authority,  they 
undoubtedly  encouraged  communism  and  anarchy  in  Bohemia. 
This  alone  accounts  for  the  bitterness  with  which  the  Calix- 
tines,  and  magister  John  of  Pribram  in  particular,  write  of  the 
Taborites.  This  bitterness  is  particularly  evident  in  Pribram's 
famed  work  entitled  The  Life  of  the  Taborite  priests.2.  He 
has  in  consequence  been  attacked  by  modern  Bohemian 
writers,  who  have  even  asserted  that  he  became  unfaithful  to 
the  Calixtine  cause.  This  is  certainly  untrue.  Like  Hus 
himself,  Pribram  did  not  wish  the  nation  to  separate  entirely 
from  the  universal  church,  but  he  hoped  to  establish  in 
Bohemia  an  autonomous  national  church  which  would  pre- 

1  See  my  Bohemia,  a  Historical  Sketch,  p.  172,  n. 

3  As  a  proof  of  the  intense  bitterness  of  this  feeling  I  will  quote  the  opening 
words  of  the  Life.  Pribram  wrote:  "  We  priests  and  preachers  and  other 
faithful  Bohemians,  both  laymen  and  ecclesiastics,  earnest  and  constant 
lovers  of  the  Bohemian  nation,  cannot  suffer  any  longer  the  many  errors  and 
diabolical  imaginings  of  these  Taborite  priests,  which  they  proclaim  in  a 
manner  that  is  ever  worse  and  worse,  spreading  thus  hatred  and  fear  through- 
out the  wide  Bohemian  land.  As  we  have  against  them  neither  judge  nor 
champion,  either  secular  or  spiritual,  we  bring  our  complaints  before  the 
Almighty  Lord  God,  and  pray  to  Him  fervently  for  help  and  justice.  We 
appeal  to  the  whole  kingdom  of  heaven  for  help  and  for  the  punishment  of 
these  terrible  sins.  We  beg  the  whole  Holy  Church  and  all  faithful  Bohemians 
to  consider  this  matter;  we  beg  you,  we  call  on  you,  we  exhort  you.  Listen 
earnestly  to  these  most  weighty  warnings  of  the  whole  Bohemian  land; 
listen,  we  beg  you,  that  our  warning  and  your  heedlessness  and  disobedience 
bear  not  witness  to  your  damnation  and  that  irreparable  harm  befall  not 
this  land  because  of  your  delay.  Verily  with  great  sorrow  and  with  un- 
speakable anguish  of  the  heart  we  intend  to  notify  and  to  announce  to  you 
the  many  terrible  errors  and  misdeeds  of  these  Taborite  priests."  {Pribram 
Zivot  Knezi  Taborskych — Life  of  the  Taborite  priests — in  Vybor  z  Literatury 
Ceske — Selections  from  Bohemian  Literature,  ii.  pp.  409-430). 


362  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

serve  the  Calixtine  rites,  particularly  with  regard  to  com- 
munion, which  would  have  at  its  head  a  pious,  virtuous  clergy 
not  burdened  with  worldly  riches,  and  which  would  employ 
the  national  language  in  its  religious  services.  If  Pribram 
attacked  rather  the  Taborites  than  the  partisans  of  Rome,  it 
was  because  he  knew  that  in  Bohemia,  where  the  memory  of 
Hus  was  still  venerated,  the  Roman  church  had  for  the  time 
lost  all  hold  on  the  people,  while  he  feared  that  the  communism 
and  anarchy  preached  by  some  of  the  extreme  Taborites 
would  alienate  all  pious  and  orderly  men  from  the  cause  of 
church-reform.  Though  Pribram  has  undoubtedly  been  very 
unjustly  attacked,  it  is  impossible  to  overlook  his  many  faults. 
In  his  frequent  controversies  with  archbishop  Rokycan,  a  much 
sterner  opponent  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  Pribram  appears 
rather  as  an  ambitious  politician  than  as  a  preacher  of 
God's  word.  Hus  was  not  destined  to  find  a  successor.  Nor 
Pribram  nor  any  other  Hussite  divine  possessed  the  truly 
apostolic  character,  the  indomitable  fortitude,  the  intense 
compassion,  the  spirit  of  absolute  self-sacrifice  which  have 
rendered  Hus  immortal. 

To  avoid  repetitions  I  have  here  endeavoured  to  give  a 
brief  outline  of  the  teaching  and  organisation  of  the  two  great 
Hussite  parties.     It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  not  only 
the  Calixtine  or  utraquist  church,  which  with  various  vicissi- 
tudes existed  up  to  the  year  1620,  when  all  religious  freedom 
:  in  Bohemia  perished,  but  also  the  Taborite  community,  whose 
<  downfall  occurred  in  1452,  underwent  several  changes.     To 
;  give  a  detailed  account  of  these  changes  would  be  entirely 
beyond  the  purpose  of  this  work,  which  endeavours  only  to 
note  briefly  the  development  of  Hus's  teaching.     In   1420, 
after  the  great  victories  of  the  Zizkov  and  Vysehrad,  it  was 
hoped  that  a  union  between  the  contending  Hussites  might  be 
obtained.     A  meeting  for  this  purpose  took  place  in  Prague 
immediately  after  the  battle  of  the  Vysehrad  "  in  the  house  of 
Peter  Zmrzlik,  a  citizen  of  Prague,  who  lived  in  the  old  town 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  363 

near  the  Church  of  St.  Jacob."  x  Peter  Mladenovic  acted  as 
spokesman  for  the  University  of  Prague,  and  bishop  Nicholas 
of  Pelhrimov  for  the  Taborites.  The  conference  proved 
resultless. 

After  the  departure  of  Sigismund  from  Bohemia,  in  the 
autumn  of  1420,  the  country  was  almost  entirely  subdued  by 
the  armies  of  the  Praguers  and  the  Taborites,  who  sometimes 
acted  jointly,  but  more  often  waged  war  separately.  Even 
the  towns  of  Plzen  and  Kutna  Hora,  strongholds  of  the 
Romanist  or  German  party,  were  obliged  to  submit.  The 
Bohemians  now  endeavoured  to  establish  an  orderly  govern- 
ment. Representatives  of  all  Bohemian  parties  met  at 
Caslav  in  1421,  and  as  was  customary  in  Bohemia  at  that 
period,  both  ecclesiastical  and  political  matters  were  dis- 
cussed. It  was  agreed  almost  unanimously  to  reaffirm  the 
articles  of  Prague  and  to  pronounce  the  deposition  of  Sigis- 
mund as  King  of  Bohemia.  A  provisional  government,  in- 
cluding members  of  all  parties,  was  formed,  and  it  was  decided 
— though  not  without  some  opposition — to  offer  the  Bohemian 
crown  to  a  Polish  prince.  Shortly  afterwards  Bohemia  was 
again  attacked  by  Sigismund  and  so-called  crusaders.  Zizka's 
great  victory  at  Nebovid  between  Kutna  Hora  and  Kolin  on 
January  6,  1422,  again  freed  Bohemia  from  all  foreign  invaders- 
Early  in  the  same  year  Prince  Korybut  of  Lithuania  arrived 
in  Bohemia  as  representative  of  his  uncle  duke  Witold  of 
Lithuania,  whom  the  Bohemians  had  chosen  as  king.  He 
left  the  country,  however,  before  the  end  of  the  year,  recalled 
by  the  Polish  court  through  the  influence  of  King  Sigismund. 
About  this  time  Zizka,  who  had  recently  acted  in  union  with 
the  Calixtine  party,  rejoined  the  extreme  Taborites.  He 
appears  to  have  believed  that  after  the  departure  of  Korybut 
some  of  the  utraquist  nobles  wished  to  recall  Sigismund  to 
Bohemia.     Zizka,   on  whom,   as  on  most   Bohemians  of  his 

1  Palacky  in  his  History  of  Bohemia  (vol.  iii.)  gives  an  interesting  account 
of  this  conference. 


364  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

time,  the  Old  Testament  had  great  influence,  appears  to  have 
considered  himself  as  an  instrument  chosen  by  providence  to 
avenge  on  Sigismund  the  murder  of  master  John  Hus,  and  he 
always  pursued  the  King  of  Hungary  with  relentless  hatred. 
Having  the  greatest  general  of  the  time  at  their  head,  the 
Taborites  no  longer  hesitated  to  wage  open  warfare  against  the 
moderate  or  Calixtine  party.  What  I  have  written  has,  I 
hope,  made  it  clear  how  great  was  the  antagonism  between 
the  Hussite  parties,  and  at  a  warlike  period,  and  among  a  war- 
like people,  such  differences  could  only  be  settled  by  "  blood 
and  iron."  Zizka  defeated  the  Calixtines,  led  by  Cenek  of 
Wartemberg,  in  a  great  battle  at  Horic  (April  27,  1423)- 
Rumours  of  a  threatened  new  invasion  caused  the  Bohemians 
to  reunite,  as  indeed  they  at  this  period  always  did  when 
attacked  by  foreign  enemies.  A  truce  was  concluded  at 
Konopist,  which,  reserving  for  future  decision  all  questions  of 
dogma  and  ecclesiastical  government,  limited  itself  to  declar- 
ing that  the  questions  concerning  vestments  and  the  decora- 
tion of  churches  should  be  entrusted  to  the  authorities  of  the 
church,  and  did  not  depend  on  the  law  of  God.  So  insuffi- 
cient a  settlement  could  not  prove  definite,  and  civil  war  again 
broke  out  as  soon  as  the  danger  of  foreign  invasion  disap- 
peared for  a  time.  Zizka,  victorious  as  ever,  defeated  the 
Calixtines  at  Kralove  Hradec  and  Malesov. 

In  the  last  year  of  Zizka's  life,  peace  was  re-established 
between  the  contending  Hussite  parties,  mainly  through  the 
mediation  of  Prince  Korybut,  who  had  returned  to  Bohemia. 
A  great  meeting  took  place  on  the  "  Spitalske  pole  "  (spital 
field)  on  the  spot  where  the  Prague  suburb  Karlin *  now 
stands.  Zizka,  whose  usual  moderation  always  abandoned 
him  when  King  Sigismund  was  in  question,  had  sworn  entirely 
to  destroy  the  city  of  Prague,  which,  as  he  believed,  still  har- 
boured some  adherents  of  the  King  of  Hungary.  The  elo- 
quence of  the  young  priest  John  of  Rokycan,  afterwards  arch- 

1  In  German,  Karolinenthal. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  365 

bishop  of  Prague — pacified  him.  Rokycan  strongly  and 
successfully  appealed  to  his  feelings  as  a  Slav  and  a  Bohemian. 
It  was  thus  as  a  leader  of  the  whole  united  Hussite  army  that 
Zizka  started  on  his  last  campaign.  All  the  Taborite  leaders, 
the  Praguers  under  Prince  Korybut  and  the  Calixtine  nobles 
joined  Zizka's  colours.  It  was  indeed  a  fateful  moment  in 
the  history  of  Bohemia.  The  allies  were  determined  to 
establish  the  rule  of  the  chalice  in  the  sister-land  Moravia. 
The  scanty  and  often-defeated  Austrian  troops  of  Sigismund's 
son-in-law  Albert,  who  held  the  country  for  the  Germans, 
could  have  offered  little  resistance.  Prince  Korybut  had 
frankly  and  sincerely  accepted  the  articles  of  Prague,  and  the 
formerly  suspicious  Bohemians  had  begun  to  trust  his  loyalty. 
Had  Moravia  been  conquered,  the  estates  of  that  country 
would  undoubtedly,  jointly  with  those  of  Bohemia,  have 
elected  Korybut  as  king.  Republican  rule  over  an  extensive 
country  being  in  the  fifteenth  century  practically  an  impos- 
sibility, this  was  certainly  the  one  moment  when  the  founda- 
tion of  a  Slavic  and  utraquist  state  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia 
was  possible.  Fate,  never  favourable  to  Bohemia,  willed  it 
otherwise.  Before  crossing  the  Moravian  frontier,  the 
Hussites  laid  siege  to  the  castle  of  Pribislav  near  that  frontier. 
During  the  siege  Zizka  was  attacked  by  the  plague  and  died 1 
on  October  11,  1424.  His  death  put  a  stop  to  the  campaign 
in  Moravia.  The  moderate  Taborites  adopted  the  name  of 
Orphans,  thus  indicating  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  them 
to  replace  their  dead  leader. 

It  is  a  proof  of  the  military  spirit  that  was  general  among 
the  Hussites  that,  deeply  as  they  felt  the  loss  of  their  leader, 
they  did  not  hesitate  for  a  moment  in  continuing  their  resist- 
ance to  the  ever-returning  German  invaders.  In  Prokop  thes 
Great  and  Prokop  the  Less  they  found  leaders  who  were  no 
unworthy    successors    of    Zizka.     The    Bohemians    now    no 

1  An  account  of  Zizka's  death — founded  on  the  narrative  of  a  contemporary 
chronicler — will  be  found  in  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  p.  152. 


366  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

longer  contented  themselves  with  repulsing  the  invaders,  but 
they  successfully  attacked  the  Germans  and  Austrians  in  their 
own  countries,  though  they  never  attempted  permanently  to 
establish  their  rule  in  foreign  lands.  It  now  appearing  evident 
that  Bohemia  could  not  be  subdued,  both  Sigismund  and  the 
Roman  church  determined  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  the 
Hussites.  The  negotiations  were  prolonged  and  encountered 
many  obstacles.  After  hesitating  for  a  considerable  time, 
Pope  Martin  consented  to  the  meeting  of  a  general  council  of 
the  church  at  Basel.  New  difficulties,  however,  arose  as  the 
Bohemians  demanded  that  all  Christian  churches,  that  is  the 
members  of  the  Greek  and  Armenian  churches  as  well  as  those 
who  belonged  to  the  Roman  church,  should  be  invited.  The 
Hussites  also  demanded  special  guarantees  for  the  safety  of 
their  envoys,  who  might  otherwise  meet  with  the  fate  of  Hus. 
A  new  and  decisive  defeat  of  the  Romanists  at  Domazlice  * 
on  August  14,  1531,  accelerated  the  negotiations.  The 
Bohemians,  who  were  assured  of  the  safety  of  their  envoys, 
and  who  themselves  wished  for  peace,  determined  to  send 
envoys  to  Basel,  where  the  council  had  already  assembled. 
Their  numerous  embassy,  at  the  head  of  which  were  Prokop 
the  Great  and  John  of  Rokycan,  arrived  at  Basel  on  January 
4,  1433.  Very  lengthy  discussions  at  the  council  now  began. 
The  papal  representatives,  now  aware  that  some  concessions 
would  have  to  be  made  to  the  Bohemians,  wished  to  limit  as 
much  as  possible  these  concessions.  The  Hussites,  on  the 
other  hand,  after  an  uninterrupted  series  of  victories  that  had 
lasted  twelve  years,  saw  no  reason  to  assume  a  conciliatory 
attitude.  After  a  time,  though  negotiations  were  not  entirely 
broken  off,  the  Bohemian  envoys  left  Basel.  They  were, 
however,  accompanied  by  representatives  of  the  council  who 
hoped  to  continue  the  negotiations  in  Bohemia.  In  July  a 
new  embassy  of  the  Bohemians  formulated  their  demands  in 
four  articles,  which  were  finally  accepted  in  a  slightly  modified 

1  In  German,  Tauss. 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  367 

form  by  the  council  and  constituted  the  famed  compacts, 
which  continued  to  be,  up  to  1567,  a  fundamental  law  of  the 
kingdom.     The  compacts  declared  that : — 

I.  The  Holy  Sacrament  is  to  be  given  freely  in  both  kinds 
to  all  Christians  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia  and  to  those  else- 
where who  adhere  to  the  faith  of  the  two  countries. 

II.  All  mortal  sins  shall  be  punished  and  extirpated  by 
those  whose  office  it  is  to  do  so. 

III.  The  word  of  God  is  to  be  freely  and  truthfully 
preached  by  the  priests  of  the  Lord  and  by  worthy  deacons. 

IV.  The  priests  in  the  time  of  the  law  of  grace  shall  claim 
ownership  of  no  worldly  possessions. 

The  compacts  are  obviously  founded  on  the  articles  of 
Prague,  but  they  hardly  satisfied  the  demands  of  even  thej 
most  moderate  utraquists.     Some  of  the  stipulations  are  very: 
unclear.     The  one  which  limited  the  wealth  of  the  clergy,, 
always  very  reluctantly  accepted  by  the  church,  was  liable  to 
be  interpreted  in  various  manners.     Indirectly  this  question 
contributed  considerably  to  the  outbreak  of  the  thirty  years 
war.1     It    is    doubtful    whether    the    compacts    would    have 
generally  been  accepted  by  the  Bohemians  had  it  not  been 
that  a  political  reaction  took  place  in  the  country  about  this 
time.     The  formerly  powerful  nobility  of  Bohemia  had  played 
but  an  insignificant  part  in  the  latter  years  of  the  Hussite  wars. 
Many  utraquist  nobles  therefore  wished — if  the  freedom  to 
retain  the  revered  chalice  was  granted  them — to  act  in  union 
with  the  papal  nobles  and  suppress  the  turbulent  democracy 
of  Tabor.     Almost  the  entire  nobility  of  Bohemia,  both  utra- 
quist and  Romanist,  and  a  few  of  the  more  conservative  towns  1 
formed  a  confederacy  for  this  purpose,  and  their  army  decisively ' 
defeated  the  Taborite  forces,  led  by  Prokop  the  Great,   at- 
Lipany   on    May    30,    1434.     A   general   pacification    rapidly" 
followed  the  defeat  of  the  advanced  party.     At  a  meeting  at 

1  See  my  Bohemia,  a  Historical  Sketch,  pp.  300-301. 


368  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Iglau  the  compacts  were  signed  and  accepted  by  both  the 
Bohemians  and  the  representatives  of  the  council,  and  the 
Bohemians  at  last  recognised  Sigismund  as  their  king.  The 
estates  had  some  time  previously  elected  John  of  Rokycan  as 
utraquist  Archbishop  of  Prague.  One  of  their  conditions  for 
accepting  Sigismund  as  king  was  his  promise  to  use  his  in- 
fluence on  the  pope  to  obtain  the  recognition  of  Rokycan  as 
archbishop.  Treacherous  as  ever,  Sigismund  did  not  fulfil 
his  promise,  and  indeed  secretly  opposed  the  recognition  of 
the  archbishop  by  the  pope.  John  of  Rokycan,  however,  con- 
tinued to  exercise  his  functions  up  to  his  death  in  1471,  and 
the  fact  that  the  papal  opposition  to  him  also  continued  was 
alone  sufficient  to  render  a  true  ecclesiastical  pacification  of 
Bohemia  impossible. 

Sigismund's  reign  in  Bohemia  was  very  short.  Already 
sixty-eight  eyars  of  age,  he  arrived  at  Prague  for  the  first  time 
as  king  in  August  1436,  and  he  died  in  December  1437.  He 
was  succeeded  by  his  son-in-law,  Albert  Duke  of  Austria,  of 
whom  the  chroniclers  only  tell  us  laconically  that  "  he  was  a 
good  man  though  a  German."  Albert  only  reigned  about  two 
years,  and  a  very  turbulent  period  followed  his  death. 
Albert's  widow  had  indeed  in  February  1440  given  birth  to  a 
son  Ladislas,  surnamed  "  Posthumus,"  but  the  government  of 
*the  country  was  in  dispute  between  two  rival  parties  among 
the  nobility.  George  of  Podebrad  acted  as  leader  of  the 
utraquist — or,  as  Palacky  at  this  period  calls  it — the  national 
party,  while  Ulrich  of  Rosenberg  was  the  leader  of  the 
Romanist,  or  Austrian  party.  In  1448,  Podebrad  obtained 
the  guardianship  of  Ladislas  Posthumus. 

Since  the  defeat  of  Tabor  the  utraquist  church  in  Bohemia 
had  adopted  a  very  retrograde  policy.  It  endeavoured  in  every 
way,  except  by  means  of  absolute  submission,  to  ingratiate 
itself  with  the  Roman  see.  These  attempts  were  invariably 
resultless.  The  Roman  pontiff  never  recognised  Rokycan 
as   archbishop,   and   Pope   Nicholas   V.   formally   repudiated 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  369 

the  compacts.  While  the  cringing  policy  of  the  utraquist 
church  gained  it  no  friends  in  Rome,  it  caused  great  discon- 
tent in  Bohemia.  Many  Bohemians  seriously  contemplated 
a  union  with  the  Eastern  Church,  and  these  negotiations 
were  only  ended  in  consequence  of  the  conquest  of  Con- 
stantinople by  the  Turks.  Other  opponents  of  the  utraquist) 
church  favoured  views  not  dissimilar  to  those  formerly  held  by' 
the  men  of  Tabor.  Thus  arose  the  community  of  the  Bohemian, 
brethren  which  played  so  eminent  a  part  during  the  last  years 
of  Bohemian  independence.  Its  moral  originator  was  Peter 
Chelcicky,1  but  the  community  was  founded  by  a  young  monk 
named  Brother  Gregory,  a  nephew  of  Archbishop  Rokycan,| 
and  Michael,  parish  priest  of  Zamberk.2  They  first  estab-', 
lished  themselves  at  Kunwald,  a  small  village  near  Zamberk 

During  the  short  reign  of  Ladislas  Posthumus,  George  of 
Podebrad  continued  to  govern  Bohemia,  and  after  his  death 
— he  died  in  1457,  not  yet  eighteen  years  of  age — Podebrad 
was  elected  king.  His  reign  was,  particularly  in  its  earlier 
part,  a  time  of  great  prosperity  for  Bohemia.  Podebrad 
being,  however,  and  always  remaining  a  firm  adherent  of  the 
utraquist  church,  he  was  confronted  by  the  constant  enmity 
of  the  Roman  church.  It  was  through  the  influence  of  Rome  f 
that  Podebrad  became  in  the  last  years  of  his  life  involved  in 
a  long  and  disastrous  war  with  King  Matthias  of  Hungary.  > 
In  consequence  of  these  wars,  Podebrad,  who  had  at  one  time 
thought  of  founding  a  national  dynasty,  was  obliged  to  use  his 
influence  to  assure  the  succession  to  the  Bohemian  throne  to 
Prince  Vladislav,  son  of  Casimir,  King  of  Poland.  Though 
the  Bohemian  estates  still  considered  the  Bohemian  throne  an 
elective  one,  they  without  much  opposition  accepted  Vladi- 
slav as  king  after  the  death  of  Podebrad  in  147 1.  Vladislav 
was  a  firm  adherent  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  his  influence 
on  Bohemian  affairs  was  very  slight,  as  after  his  election  as 

1  For  Chelcicky,  see  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  pp.  1 53-171. 

2  In  German,  Senftenberg. 

2  A 


370  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

King  of  Hungary  in  1490,  he  resided  almost  entirely  in  that 
country.  Vladislav  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Louis,  who  had 
been  crowned  as  King  of  Bohemia  when  but  three  years  of 
age.  He  also  succeeded  his  father  as  King  of  Hungary,  and 
when  defending  that  country  against  the  Turks  he  was  killed 
at  the  battle  of  Mohac,  when  but  twenty  years  of  age. 

The  estates  of  Bohemia,  after  prolonged  negotiations,  chose 
j  as  successor  to  King  Louis  his  brother-in-law  Ferdinand,  Arch- 
1  duke  of  Austria.  Though  two  princes  of  the  House  of  Habs- 
burg  had  previously  ruled  for  brief  periods  over  Bohemia, 
Ferdinand's  election  marks  the  accession  of  the  House  of 
Habsburg  to  the  Bohemian  throne.  Simultaneously  with  this 
foundation  of  a  new  dynasty,  the  almost  extinct  Romanist 
creed  again  began  to  gather  strength.  There  is,  of  course,  a 
close  connection  between  the  two  events,  for  even  at  that  time 
the  unwritten  but  almost  unbroken  alliance  between  the 
House  of  Habsburg  and  the  Roman  see  had  long  been  in  exist- 

!ence.  Ferdinand,  a  prince  of  exceptional  astuteness,  to  whose 
talent  historians  have  never  done  sufficient  justice,  from  the 
moment  of  his  coronation  endeavoured  to  strengthen  the 
Roman  cause  in  Bohemia.  He  endeavoured,  though  with 
little  success,  to  gain  for  his  side  the  more  conservative  Calix- 
tines.  Since  the  appearance  of  Lutheranism  in  the  neighbour- 
ing German  lands,  these  men  had  become  somewhat  isolated. 
The  more  advanced  utraquists  had  adopted  many  of  Luther's 
views,  and  the  community  of  the  Bohemian  brethren  were  yet 
further  from  the  old  Calixtine  teaching.  Yet  Ferdinand 
found  little  sympathy  even  among  the  Hussites  nearest  to  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  these  attempts,  which  began  soon  after 
Ferdinand's  accession  in  1526,  were  afterwards  discontinued. 
A  foolish  and  unsuccessful  attempt  made  by  the  Bohemian 
estates  in  1547  to  assist  the  German  Protestants  who  were 
engaged  in  war  with  Ferdinand's  brother  Charles  V.,  gave  the 
king  the  desired  occasion  for  acting  with  more  vigour  in 
Bohemia.     The  Bohemian  towns  were  deprived  of  most  of 


THE  HUSSITE  WARS  371 

their  privileges.  This  undoubtedly  proves  how  crafty  was 
Ferdinand's  policy.  The  Bohemian  nobles  had  sometime 
previously  established  serfdom  in  Bohemia,  thus  rendering 
helpless  the  peasants  who  had  supplied  the  Hussites  with  their 
best  soldiers.  Ferdinand's  decrees  now  rendered  the  towns- 
men defenceless.  As  defenders  of  the  nation  and  its  church 
there  remained  only  the  knights  and  nobles,  whom  Ferdi- 
nand's grandson  was  afterwards  to  subdue.  Pursuing  his 
policy,  Ferdinand  in  1556  established  the  Jesuits  in  Bohemia, 
and  in  1562  the  Roman  archbishopric  of  Prague  was  re- 
established after  an  interval  of  more  than  a  century. 

The  re-establishment  of  the  Roman  church  made  little 
progress  during  the  reign  of  Maximilian,  who  after  Ferdi- 
nand's death  in  1564  succeeded  to  the  Bohemian  throne. 
Maximilian's  son,  Rudolph  II.,  the  second  who  became  King 
of  Bohemia  in  1576,  also  at  first  showed  little  interest  in 
religious  matters,  and  during  the  prolonged  struggle  between 
him  and  his  brother  Matthias  both  brothers  made  use  of  the 
religious  divergences  to  further  their  own  ambitious  purposes. 
Rudolph  in  1609  very  reluctantly  signed  the  "Letter  of 
Majesty,"  which  granted  the  Protestants — a  name  that  at 
this  period  included  Lutherans,  members  of  the  Bohemian 
brotherhood,  and  utraquists — considerable  privileges.  Rudolph, 
as  the  so-called  "  incursion  of  the  men  of  Passau  "  proves, 
had  determnied  to  free  himself  from  this  onerous  obligation 
as  soon  as  circumstances  permitted  it,  and  the  same  may 
be  said  of  his  brother  Matthias,  though  he  confirmed  the 
letter  of  majesty  when  he  succeeded  his  brother  in  1612.  Both  • 
Rudolph  and  Matthias  being  childless,  Archduke  Ferdinand 
of  Styria,  a  grandson  of  Ferdinand  I.,  became  heir  to  the; 
Bohemian  throne,  and  under  great  pressure  the  majority  of 
the  Bohemian  estates  recognised  him  as  such  in  1617.  Ferdi- 
nand, who  had  for  some  time  ruled  over  Styria,  had  in 
that  country  relentlessly  persecuted  and  driven  from  the 
land  all  who  did  not  profess  the  Roman  creed.       He  made 


372  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

no  secret  of  his  intention  of  pursuing  the  same  policy  in 
Bohemia  after  his  succession  to  the  throne.  The  Bohemians 
had  therefore  either  tacitly  to  accept  their  fate,  as  the  Styrians 
had  done,  or  to  rise  in  arms  before  Ferdinand  should  have 
ascended  the  throne.  It  is  beyond  my  purpose  to  describe 
this  rising  and  the  subsequent  campaigns.  At  the  battle  of 
the  Bila  Hora — November  8,  1620 — the  religious  freedom 
and  for  a  time  also  the  nationality  of  Bohemia  perished.  The 
Roman  religion  was  forcibly  re-established,  and  Hus's  influence 
on  the  development  of  Bohemia  ends  here.  Yet  will  the 
memory  of  Hus  always  be  sacred  to  Bohemians.  Though  the 
conflicts  of  the  present  day  turn  on  questions  of  politics  and 
nationality,  not  of  religion,  the  memory  of  Hus  and  of  the 
Hussite  wars  has  often  strengthened  and  roused  to  new  efforts 
those  Bohemians  who  felt  inclined  to  despair  of  the  future  of 
their  country. 


APPENDIX 

A  CONTEMPORARY  BOHEMIAN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE 
DEATH  OF  HUS 

That  indefatigable  searcher  of  documents  appertaining  to  ancient 
Bohemian  history,  Mr.  Adolphus  Patera,  formerly  head-librarian  of 
the  Bohemian  museum,  about  the  year  1888  discovered  in  the 
library  of  Prince  Lobkowitz  at  Roudnice  a  contemporary  Bohemian 
account  of  the  death  of  Hus  that  was  previously  entirely  unknown. 
I  had  intended  merely  to  refer  to  this  account  briefly,  while  telling 
the  story  of  the  death  of  the  master  according  to  the  well-known 
account  of  his  disciple,  Peter  Mladenovic,  which  will  never  be 
superseded.  I  found,  however,  that  such  references  retarded  and 
impeded  the  narrative,  and  I  have  therefore  translated  for  the 
benefit  of  those  interested  in  the  matter  the  Bohemian  paper  which 
Mr.  Patera  read  at  the  general  meeting  of  the  Bohemian  Society  of 
Sciences  on  April  9,  1888.  Mr.  Patera  stated :  In  a  paper  manu- 
script contained  in  the  library  of  Prince  Lobkowitz  at  Roudnice 
(vi.  Fg.  60)  which  begins  with  the  "  Dispute  of  Intellect  and 
Conscience  on  the  worthy  manner  of  receiving  the  Body  of  God,"  1 
I  found  among  other  matter  also  an  "  Account  of  the  Trial  and 
Burning  of  Master  John  Hus."  In  the  present — nineteenth — 
century  some  one  wrote  on  the  cover:  "  The  following  little  work 
is  known  under  the  name  of  Peter  Mladenovic's  Life  of  John  Hus, 
and  J.  Jungmann  2  in  his  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  1849, 
p.  71,  n.  159,  maintains  that  this  notice  is  derived  mainly  from  the 
writings  of  Hus  about  himself."  Both  these  conjectures  are, 
however,  not  founded  on  truth.  We  also  can  give  no  credit  to  the 
view  that  the  writer  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  events  which  he 
describes,  though  he  himself  affirms  this,  writing  of  himself,  "  I 
have  briefly  noted  down  everything  concerning  the  events  that 
befell  in  the  Suabian  country  and  its  capital  called  Constance,  for 

1  An  ancient  Bohemian  religious  pamphlet. 

2  Joseph  Jungmann  (b.  1773 — 1847)  author  of  a  large  work  on  Bohemian 
literature.     (See  my  History  of  Bohemian  Literature,  pp  362-371.) 

373 


374  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

some  have  taken  away  and  some  added.  But  I  have  noted  down 
all  that  I  saw,  and  at  which  I  was  present."  It  appears  more 
likely  that  he  noted  down  what  he  heard  among  the  people  from 
the  mouths  of  some  persons.  The  manuscript  of  Roudnice  pre- 
serves to  us  rather  the  tradition  concerning  the  judgment  and 
burning  of  Hus  which  was  current  in  Bohemia  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  and  which  was  written  down  by  some  admirer  of  Hus. 
The  manuscript  of  Roudnice  dates  from  about  the  second  third  *  of 
the  fifteenth  century.  In  the  same  manuscript  is  preserved  on 
page  100&-103&  a  short  Bohemian  catechism  which  differs  slightly 
from  the  catechism  printed  by  Palacky,  Documenta,2  magistri 
Joannis  Hus,  Prague,  1869,  pp.  703-708,  and  which  Dr.  J.  Muller 
translated  into  German  in  his  work,  Die  Deutschen  Katechismen  der 
bohmischen  Bruder,  pp.  90-95  (Monumenta  Germaniae  paedagogica, 
vol.  vi.). 

The  contents  of  the  account  are  given  with  the  greatest  faithful- 
ness in  accordance  with  the  original.  The  necessary  interpunctua- 
tion  has  been  added,  and  the  prepositions  and  other  particles  have 
been  separated  from  the  following  word.  The  account  runs  as 
follows : — 

In  the  year  since  the  birth  of  the  son  of  God  fourteen  hundred  and 
fifteen,  I  have  briefly  noted  down  the  events  that  befell  in  the  Sua- 
bian  country  and  in  its  capital,  which  is  called  Constance,  for  some 
have  taken  away  (i.e.  omitted  facts)  and  some  (have)  added.  But  I 
have  noted  down  what  I  saw,  and  at  which  I  was  present.  When 
the  servitor  of  Venceslas,  King  of  Bohemia  3  arrived,  he  wrote  in  the 
evening  a  letter  to  the  famed  and  celebrated  master  Jakubek, 
surnamed  "  of  Stribro."  4  Seeing  this,  Master  John  Kardinal 6 
said:  What  dost  thou  write,  master  of  the  blood  of  God  and  of 
communion  with  the  chalice  ?  With  difficulty  will  the  Christianity 
of  the  present  age  accept  this.  Knowest  thou  not  that  we  must 
stand  to-morrow  before  the  masters  of  all  Christianity,  who  will 
greatly  oppose,  declaring  us  guilty  because  of  this  (i.e.  the  intro- 
duction of  communion  in  the  two  kinds).  On  the  next  morning 
the  legates,  cardinals,  the  bishops  of  all  Christianity,  the  King  of 
Hungary  as  emperor  of  the  (Roman)  empire  questioned  him  (Hus) 
saying:  This  assembly  is  very  grateful  to  thee  for  coming  to  us; 
hadst  thou  failed  to  do  so,  much  good  would  have  been  destroyed. 

1  That  is  to  say,  between  1433  and  1466. 

8  The  well-known  collection  of  documents,  which  has  been  frequently 
quoted  in  this  work. 
»Hus. 

4  Magister  Jacobellus,  the  famed  theologian. 
6  The  great  friend  of  Hus,  and  one  of  his  companions  on  his  last  journey. 


APPENDIX  375 

And  Master  John  Hus  answered  saying:  Often  have  I  wished  to 
see  you  in  person  and  converse  with  you,  but  I  had  not  such  an 
opportunity  (as  now).  I  have  appealed  to  you  and  sent  my 
magisters  (to  represent  me),  Master  John  of  Jesenic,  Master  Marcus 
and  other  magisters,  but  to  them  you  did  not  grant  a  hearing 
before  you.  Rather  did  you  oppose  them  with  cries  and  insults, 
imprisonment  and  frowns,  but  I,  commending  myself  to  the  Lord 
God,  preached  the  word  of  God,  wishing  only  that  I  could  with  my 
own  hands  lift  up  all  men  to  heaven,  were  it  but  possible.  The 
Bishop  of  Riga  arose  among  the  council,  and  spoke  saying :  Master 
John,  this  assembly  convened  by  the  Holy  Ghost  says:  Wilt  thou 
of  thy  own  account  do  this  (namely),  not  be  sophistical,  obey,  and 
accept  instruction  ?  He  answered  and  spoke  saying :  Give  me  the 
lowest  of  your  assembly,  I  am  ready  to  accept  with  thanks  all  that 
will  be  good.  They  answered  saying:  Fifty-two  masters  have 
insisted  on  this,  that  thou  shalt  declare  thy  preaching,  councils, 
and  confessions  to  be  heretical,  and  teach  the  contrary.  Master 
John  Hus  answered  and  said:  That  was  fine  teaching  of  this 
learned  assembly.  Did  not  that  young  weak  girl  St.  Catherine  1 
act  thus,  that  she  led  fifty  magisters  to  the  Lord  and  I,  poor  and 
insufficient  man,  cannot  even  convince  one.  Then  the  Bishop  of 
Lodi  arose  and  spoke  saying:  If  thou  wilt  not  yield  and  obey,  the 
spiritual  arm  will  submit  you  to  its  discipline,  place  you  in  prison, 
and  endeavour  to  mitigate  your  errors  and  heresy.  Then  they 
placed  him  with  the  barefooted  monks  under  the  Rhine  where  he 
was  put  in  a  prison-chamber  which  was  so  narrow  that  he  could 
hardly  stretch  himself,  and  which  had  but  a  small  window,  so  that 
he  could  obtain  a  small  quantity 2  of  water  or  wine,  for  in  those 
countries  there  is  no  beer;  and  while  in  prison  he  wrote  of  his 
imprisonment  to  the  faithful  Bohemians  who  loved  God,  to  the  men 
of  Prague,  Zatec,3  Loun,  and  also  Plzen  saying :  Pray  fervently  for 
me  to  God  begging  him  to  grant  me  constancy,  for  I  am  not  better 
than  St.  Peter  who  three  times  disowned  the  Lord  Jesus.  If  I 
(also)  disown  (him)  do  not  use  me  ill  (blame  me),  dear  Bohemians 
who  are  without  blame  before  God  and  men.  But  if"  we  are  com- 
panions in  affliction  with  Christ,  we  will  also  rejoice  together  with 
Christ.     We  (will  not  be)  as  murderers  and  robbers,  who  suffer  for 

1  A  reference  to  the  well-known  legend  of  St.  Catherine.  It  is  said  that 
fifty  pagan  philosophers  visited  her  to  expound  the  erroneousness  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  that  her  eloquence  was  so  great  that  she  converted  them  all  to 
the  Christian  creed. 

*  In  the  original  "  zajdlyk,"  a  measure  of  liquor.  The  word,  in  German, 
"  seidel,"  continued  in  use  up  to  recent  times, 

*  In  German,  Saaz. 


376  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

their  deeds,  but  we  will  with  Christ  suffer  guiltlessly  that  we  may 
obtain  eternal  life.  For  Solomon  says  that  God  behaves  to  men  as 
a  father  to  his  little  sons,  punishing  them,  though  he  loves  them, 
as  a  father  loves  his  sons  and  wishes  not  to  behold  their  perdition. 
Graciously  hast  Thou  (Jesus)  deigned  to  look  down  upon  us,  giving 
strange  gifts,  a  narrow  prison,  an  evil  couch,  vile  food,  cruel  fetters, 
toothache,  dysentery  and  fever,  that,  as  the  whole  body  sinned, 
offending  its  God,  thus  also  the  whole  body  should  receive  the 
punishment  given  it  by  God.  Then  came  Master  Stephen  surnamed 
Palicz  x  the  parish  priest  of  Kourim,  and  said  to  him  (Hus) :  Lend 
briefly  thy  ear  to  what  I  will  say.  Master  John  Hus  answered  and 
said:  Say,  dear  brother,  something  good  to  comfort  me."  Master 
Stephen  answered  and  said:  I  wonder  at  that  which  I  have  read 
according  to  Scripture;  since  the  day  of  the  birth  of  the  son  of 
God,  there  has  not  been  so  hardened  a  heretic  as  thou  art.  Master 
John  Hus  answered  and  said:  May  God  not  account  this  to  thee 
as  a  sin,  for  thou  hast  preached  the  gospel  from  the  same  pulpit 
as  I,  and  thou  hast  preached  the  true  faith.  But  already  at  the 
time  of  my  judgment  hast  thou  declared  me  to  be  a  heretic,  may 
God  forgive  thee  thy  sins.  Then  came  the  Bohemian  nobles, 
knights  of  the  Hungarian  king,  Lord  Venceslas  of  Duba,  otherwise 
of  Lestno,  and  Lord  John  of  Chlum,  and  they  spoke  saying:  Listen 
but  for  a  short  time  to  that  which  we  will  say  to  thee.  We  are 
laymen  and  know  not  scripture  (sufficiently)  that  we  could  counsel 
thee  in  accordance  with  it ;  but  according  to  common  sense  we 
counsel  thee :  if  thou  art  guilty  of  these  errors  and  heresies,  recant 
them  and  save  thy  life.  But  if  thou  art  not  guilty — and  that  thy 
conscience  knoweth  well — then  entrust  thyself  in  great  confidence 
to  God.  Then  Master  John  Hus  answering  said:  I  would  not 
stand  before  God  with  even  the  slightest  stain  on  my  conscience. 
You  have  given  me  better  advice  than  could  a  master,  who  had 
studied  in  the  schools. 

In  the  month  of  June,  in  the  octave  of  St.  Peter  and  Paul,2 
they  at  last  decided  to  deprive  him  of  his  life,  if  he  did  not  yield. 
In  the  church  of  St.  Paul,  the  principal  one  of  that  city,  they  placed 
in  a  spot  in  the  middle  of  the  church  which  was  surrounded  by 
planks  some  chairs  and  a  table  on  which  were  laid  his  vestments, 
that  he  might  be  despoiled  of  the  dignity  of  priesthood.  Then  the 
Hungarian  king,  having  on  his  head  the  golden  imperial  crown,  sat 
down  on  his  splendid  throne  between  two  princes ;    Prince  Hanus, 

1  Stephen  Palec,  the  famous — or  rather  infamous — informer. 

2  Old  style.  The  martyrdom  of  Hus  took  place  on  the  6th  of  July  new 
style. 


APPENDIX  377 

the  younger1  sat  at  his  right  holding  in  his  hand  the  golden  apple 
with  a  cross  as  emblem  of  his  dignity.  Another  prince  was  at  his 
left  holding  aloft  a  bare  sword.  When  they  led  Master  John  Hus 
out  of  prison,  he  was  so  weak  that  his  bones  clang  to  his  skin, 
because  of  the  many  illnesses  from  which  he  had  suffered  in  prison. 
Master  John  Hus  bowed  down  before  the  body  of  God  (on  the 
altar)  and  prayed,  but  to  the  people  he  only  showed  his  respect  by 
(bowing)  his  head.  For  it  is  written  thus :  Before  God  humble 
your  heart,  but  before  the  great  and  the  prince  bend  your  head ; 
and  he  (Hus)  stood  before  them,  folding  his  hands,  and  from  his 
right  foot  the  fetters  had  not  yet  been  struck  off.  One  of  the 
assembly  arose  and  spoke  saying :  This  assembly  which  has  met  by 
order  of  the  Holy  Ghost  bids  thee  to  allow  thyself  to  be  instructed. 
Master  John  answered:  I  still  beg  for  instruction,  but  up  to  the 
present  time  I  have  received  none.  I  am  ready  to  die  for  that 
which  I  have  preached  in  accordance  with  the  holy  prophets,  the 
holy  scriptures,  the  words  of  the  holy  apostles,  the  fathers  of  the 
church  and  the  holy  martyrs,  for  better  doctrine  have  I  none. 
Oh,  you  have  summoned  me  (before  your  tribunal)  and  oppress  me 
unrighteously  with  your  might ;  but  I  summon  you  all  in  a  century 
before  the  Lord  God.  Then  immediately  the  Cardinal  of  Cambray 
sprang  up  and  said :  John  Hus,  obdurate  heretic,  this  will  not  avail 
thee :  thou  wilt  not  escape  from  our  hands.  Master  John  Hus 
answered  and  spoke :  It  is  indeed  a  fine  holy  council ;  three  hundred 
harlots  have  followed  it  (come  with  it).  Your  earthly  God  you 
once  called  John  the  Pope,  Balthasar  XXIII.,  saying  that  he  was 
an  earthly  God  (God  upon  earth)  and  could  not  sin.  But  when 
by  divine  permission  the  secular  power  seized  him  you  confessed 
that  he  was  an  evil  sinner  and  simonist,  the  worst  of  heretics,  and 
you  hold  him  in  the  Castle  of  Gottlieben ;  and  what  this  council 
did  in  summer,  that  will  be  known  when  winter  comes ;  they  will 
fly  away  like  storks,  and  their  enactments  will  be  vain.  He  then 
looked  at  the  King  of  Hungary,  and  spoke  saying :  King,  that  for 
which  thou  strivest  thou  shalt  not  obtain,  for  through  thy  miserable 
artifices  thou  shalt  lose  thy  life ;  that  for  which  thou  strivest  thou 
shalt  not  obtain.  Thou  wilt  be  neither  Roman  Emperor  nor 
King  in  Bohemia.2  Hearing  this  the  Hungarian  king  blushed  with 
shame  and  hung  down  his  head;    then  they  immediately  read  out 

1  The  person  thus  described  is  Louis  Count  Palatine,  who  carried  the 
imperial  globe  here  designated  as  the  "  golden  apple." 

2  These  (false)  predictions,  here  wrongly  attributed  to  Hus,  seem  to  point 
to  the  early  date  of  the  manuscript.  Though  he  always  claimed  the  Bohemian 
throne,  Sigismund  was  only  recognised  as  King  of  Bohemia  in  1436. 


378  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

some  articles  against  him  (Hus)  according  to  the  deposition  of  some 
witnesses  mentioned  above  or  mentioned  afterwards,  and  they 
said:  For  this  we  have  (as  witnesses)  two  canons  of  the  Vysehrad, 
two  of  the  castle  (Hradcany),  two  masters  of  the  University  of 
Prague,  two  aldermen  of  the  old  town,  that  thou  didst  say  in  one 
of  thy  sermons  that  the  mother  of  God  is  like  any  other  woman. 
And  bursting  into  tears  and  protesting,  he  said:  Far  be  this  from 
me,  miserable  and  weak  man.  Of  the  Virgin  Mary  I  believe  and 
hold  that  from  the  beginning  she  was  a  pure  virgin,  that  after  the 
birth  she  remained  a  pure  virgin  and  that  she  remained  without 
any  corruption  of  her  body.  I  believe  also  that  she  was  raised  to 
heaven,  and  that  she  is  the  highest  person  in  heaven  and  therefore 
above  the  angels,  above  the  prophets,  above  the  apostles,  above 
the  martyrs.  After  he  had  professed  his  faith  about  the  mother 
of  God,  he  immediately  ended.  Then  they  spoke  saying :  Obdurate 
heretic,  deserving  to  be  condemned,  sentenced  to  death  and  sent 
to  hell,  thou  hast  said :  When  a  priest  consecrates  the  body  of  God, 
raises  it  to  his  head  and  lays  it  on  the  corporal 1  there  does  not 
remain  only  material  bread,  that  is  to  say  it  in  Latin,  pants  materialis 
vel  substantialis.  And  bursting  into  tears  and  protesting  he  said : 
Far  be  this  from  me,  miserable  and  weak  man.  This  do  I  believe 
and  hold,  concerning  the  body  of  God,  when  an  ordained  priest 
according  to  regulations  •  approaches  the  altar  piously  and  says  the 
words  (of  consecration),  there  immediately  remains  the  whole  body 
of  Christ,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  martyred  on  the  cross  and  now 
sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  God  Father,  the  Almighty,  as  long  as 
the  sacrament  (the  holy  wafer),  its  whiteness  and  roundness,  are  at 
all  visible.  Concerning  the  third  article  the  witnesses  said:  Hear, 
obdurate  heretic,  deserving  to  be  condemned,  thou  hast  said  that  thou 
art  the  fourth  person  of  the  Holy  Trinity  (sic).  Protesting  he  said: 
Far  be  this  from  me,  miserable  and  weak  man,  that  I  should  think  so 
unwisely.  This  do  I  believe  and  hold  concerning  the  Holy  Trinity. 
I  declare — and  for  this  I  am  ready  to  die — that  the  three  names, 
the  three  persons  are  one,  one  power,  that  is  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  these  three  are  one  without  difference,  and 
I  by  no  means  add  a  fourth  to  them.  Then  they  brought  a 
paper  crown,  yards  in  height,  on  which  three  devils  were  painted  in 
black.  Seeing  it  Master  John  Hus  took  it  in  his  hands  and  placed 
it  on  his  head.  And  he  said:  Oh,  crucified  Jesus,  meek  lamb, 
Thou  hast  received  a  crown  of  thorns,  bloody  and  piercing  to  the 
brain  on  Thy  sacred  head,  for  the  sake  of  me,  sinful  one,  and  I 
now  take  on  me  this  soft  and  light  crown  for  Thy  truth  and  because 
1  The  cloth  used  in  churches  for  covering  the  elements  of  the  Eucharist. 


APPENDIX  370 

of  my  earthly  sins  that  I  may  timely  escape  them.  Then  imme- 
diately they  brought  a  chain  and  Master  John  Hus  spoke  saying: 
Oh,  crucified  Jesus,  meek  lamb,  Thou  wert  by  the  bishops  of  the 
old  law  bound  during  a  whole  night,  mocked  and  imprisoned.  This 
light  chain  I  gladly  receive  for  Thy  truth;  then  immediately  the 
bishops  spoke,  saying:  Wrongly  hath  this  heretic  enjoyed  the 
dignity  of  priesthood,  without  permission  of  the  Roman  church 
hath  he  preached  God's  word,  he  hath  dared  to  say  mass.  There- 
fore let  his  priestly  dignity  be  destroyed,  let  his  tonsure  be  shaved 
off  as  if  he  were  a  madman ;  others  said,  let  it  be  cut  out  with 
knives !  And  he  (Hus)  smiling,  spoke  and  said :  Oh,  how  quickly 
the  bishops  of  the  old  law  agreed  about  the  scoffing  and  mocking 
of  my  dear  Lord,  and  ye  cannot  agree  about  me,  miserable  and 
weak  man.  Forgive  them,  oh  God,  for  they  know  not  what  they 
do.  Answering  him  the  Cardinal  of  Cambray  spoke  saying :  Suffi- 
ciently, Hus,  hast  thou  screamed  in  the  city  of  Prague,  leading 
the  common  people  to  error  and  heresy,  therefore  wilt  thou  not  be 
allowed  to  do  so  here.  Then  they  immediately  dress  him  in  mass- 
vestments,  place  him  for  derision  in  their  midst  before  the  high 
altar,  put  a  silver  chalice  with  a  paten  in  his  hand  and  speak  saying : 
Oh  accursed  Judas,  who  hast  deserted  the  peaceful  ranks  of  this 
holy  assembly,  and  hast  gone  out  to  join  the  ranks  of  the  Jews,  we 
take  to-day  from  thee  the  chalice  in  which  thou  hast  offered  up  the 
blood  of  Christ  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  thy  soul  with  thy 
lord  devils  l  we  send  to  damnation.  Answering  them,  Master  John 
Hus  said :  And  I  hope  that  I  will  to-day  drink  of  the  chalice  in  the 
heavenly  kingdom  with  the  martyrs  and  the  Lord  Christ.  You 
commend  my  soul  to  the  devil,  but  I  commend  it  to  the  Lord 
Christ.  Then  they  took  from  him  the  mass- vestments,  and  placed 
him  in  their  midst.  Then  immediately  the  Bishop  of  Lodi  who 
was  called  (a)  monk  stood  on  a  chair  and  preached  a  sermon  on 
heresy,  taking  (for  his  text)  the  words  of  St.  Paul  in  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  "  because  of  unbelief  they 
were  broken  off."  The  body  of  John  Hus,  the  unbeliever  (the 
bishop  said)  is  worse  than  the  body  of  Judas,  for  Judas,  having 
betrayed  the  Lord  Jesus,  thus  helped  all  men  to  salvation,  but 
this  man  has  committed  a  greater  sin  than  Judas  by  contaminating 
the  holy  Roman  church.  Therefore  hath  the  spiritual  hand  nothing 
more  to  do  with  him,  and  surrenders  him  to  the  temporal  hand, 
that  the  temporal  hand  may  purify  his  errors  and  heresies  by  the 
flames  of  death.     Then  they  immediately  begin  to  burn  some  little 

1  Probably  an  allusion  to  the  three  devils  painted  on  the  cap  that  had 
been  placed  on  the  head  of  Hus. 


380  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

books,  similar  to  his  (books)  and  condemn  them  for  heresy. 
Master  John  Hus  answered  and  said:  How  could  you  condemn  my 
Bohemian  writings,  and  disparage  them,  as  being  heretical,  as  you 
had  not  read  them !  even  had  you  wished  it,  you  would  have  been 
unable  to  do  so,  for  there  were  here  (men  of)  many  nations,  Hun- 
garians, Germans,  Italians,  Frenchmen,  Englishmen,  and  (men  of) 
other  nations.  Except  John,  Bishop  of  Litomysl,  none  could 
understand  (the  Bohemian  writings) ;  for  he  is  a  Bohemian.  Then 
Master  John  Hus  recited  an  offertory  which  is  usually  sung  at  mass 
saying :  Arise,  Lady  Mother,  queen  of  heaven,  beg  of  your  son  good 
things  for  us ;  then  as  he  had  learnt  German  in  prison  he  spoke  to 
the  common  people  saying:  Thus  do  I  believe  and  hold  with 
regard  to  the  intercession  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Then  the  common 
people  began  to  whisper  among  themselves:  "  This  man  professes 
good  things,  he  should  not  die,  if  he  acted  thus  in  Bohemia."  Re- 
marking this  the  King  of  Hungary  with  his  instigators,1  his  (Hus's) 
bitterest  enemies,  spoke  saying:  Perhaps  he  will  lead  astray  the 
common  people  by  his  fine  speeches  to  (believe)  his  errors  and 
heresies,  and  he  ordered  the  beadles  and  constables  to  whip  the 
common  people  away  from  him  with  whips  and  clubs.  Meanwhile 
he  (the  king)  himself  rises  with  the  executioners,  bishops  and 
prelates,  and  he  orders  Prince  Hanus,  Lord  of  Klem  the  younger  2 
to  rise  and  hand  him  (Hus)  over  to  the  executioner.  Prince  Hanus, 
Lord  of  Klem,  the  younger,  gave  the  golden  apple  with  the  cross, 
the  emblem  of  his  dignity,  to  another  prince  and  handed  him  (Hus) 
over  to  the  executioner.  Then  while  twelve  bishops  read  holy 
prayers,  Master  John  Hus  professed  the  common  faith  (saying) : 
Thus  do  I  hold  and  believe  concerning  the  common  Christian 
faith;  and  they  led  him  out  by  the  gate  (on  the  road  to)  the 
Gottlieben  Castle,  where  the  road  runs  close  to  the  Rhine,  and  they 
drive  a  wooden  stake  deep  into  the  earth.  Seeing  this,  Master 
John  knelt  down  and  prayed  saying:  Lord  God,  deign,  I  beg 
you,  to  grant  me  your  holy  help  while  I  end  my  life  on  this  couch. 
The  crown  falls  from  his  head,  and  he,  seeing  the  three  devils 
painted  on  it,  smiles,  saying:  These  will  not  harm  me,  for  I  fear 
not  the  powers  of  hell.  Then  one  of  the  masters  said:  Always 
have  heretics  the  habit  of  smiling,  be  their  fate  ever  so  evil.  Place 
again,  master,  on  his  heretical  body  that  crown,  that  he  may  die 

1  This  refers  to  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl,  Michael  de  causis,  Palec  and  the 
other  Bohemian  priests,  opponents  of  church -reform,  who  were  then  at 
Constance. 

2  The  author  writes  in  German  "  her  czu  klem."  Rupert,  Count  Palatine, 
was  generally  known  by  the  sobriquet  of  Klem.  The  writer  here  describes 
his  son  Louis,  whom  he  wrongly  calls  "  Hanus,"— as  "  Klem  the  younger." 


APPENDIX  381 

separated  from  the  wholesome  heart  of  the  holy  church.  One 
standing  near  said :  Let  a  confessor  be  given  to  this  man.  But  he 
(Hus)  said  that  he  had  already  secretly  confessed  in  prison  and  that 
it  was  therefore  not  necessary  now.  Then  a  priest  on  a  fine  horse 
and  clad  in  red  silk  (said) :  It  is  not  seemly  to  give  to  a  heretic 
the  sacrament  of  the  holy  church,  let  him  die  like  a  dog !  Then  he 
begged  that  his  gaolers  might  be  allowed  to  approach  him.  He 
thanked  them  and  having  blessed  them  he  said :  Your  reward  will 
be  the  Lord  God  in  the  hour  of  your  death.  Then  the  executioner 
bound  him,  standing,  to  the  stake,  with  one  chain  round  his  head, 
another  round  the  middle,  and  a  third  round  his  feet,  and  he  sur- 
rounded his  body  with  dry  faggots  of  vine  up  to  his  chin.  Then 
Prince  Hanus,  Lord  of  Klem  the  younger,  and  the  Count  of  Puphaim 
(Pappenheim),  the  imperial  marshal  spoke,  saying:  Recant,  and 
save  your  life,  or  let  some  small  child  recant  for  you.  Answering, 
Master  John  Hus  said :  As  my  lips  have  since  my  childhood  never 
intentionally  lied,  assuredly  the  mouth  of  another  will  not  lie  for 
me.  They  then  waved  their  hands  asunder  (as  a  signal  to  the 
executioner)  and  went  away,  saying:  Burn,  master,  thou  art 
obdurate  in  thy  heresy,  it  is  sure  that  thou  wilt  not  give  way. 
When  the  executioner  set  fire  (to  the  stake)  a  great  flame  with 
smoke  arose.  Master  John  Hus  cried  out  to  God  with  great  con- 
fidence and  said :  Christ,  son  of  the  living  God,  have  mercy  on  me, 
sinner.  Then  taking  a  hymn  of  the  holy  David  in  the  psalter,  he 
sang  one  psalm,  saying:  Lord  God  Almighty,  according  to  thy 
great  and  manifold  compassion,  have  mercy  on  me,  sinner.  Then 
he  still  moved  his  lips,  saying  the  Lord's  prayer,  and  remained  in 
the  flames  for  the  time  you  would  take  to  go  from  the  town  of 
Prague  across  the  bridge  to  the  other  side  x  as  far  as  the  great 
church  of  the  Virgin  Mary ;  and  then  he  gave  up  the  ghost.  Then 
the  fire  sank,  the  body  was  burnt  down  and  only  the  stake  remained 
standing.  Then  the  Lord  of  Klem  ordered  three  cart-loads  of  wood 
to  be  brought  and  the  remains  to  be  broken  up  into  fragments, 
that  the  heretical  Bohemians  might  not  obtain  possession  of  his 
bones  and  venerate  them  as  relics.  Then  they  threw  his  garments 
and  the  boots  which  he  had  worn  in  prison  into  the  fire,  roasted  his 
heart  on  a  pointed  stake  and  turned  everything,  even  his  bones, 
into  dust.  Then  they  dig  up  the  earth  deeply  2  load  (the  remains) 
on  carts  and,  as  the  Rhine  was  near,  scatter  them  in  the  water 
saying:    Swim,  Hus,  to  thy  God.      Then  assembling  the  beadles 

1  The  Mala  Strana  ("  small  quarter  ")  of  the  town  of  Prague,  situated  on 
the  left  bank  of  the  river  Vltava. 

2  To  prevent  the  Bohemians  carrying  away  morsels  of  earth  as  relics. 


382  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

he  (the  Count  Palatine),  gave  them  orders  with  a  loud  voice  (saying) : 
He  who  shall  mourn  over  this  heretic,  or  follow  him,  or  hold  to 
him,  to  him  shall  the  same  be  done  or  worse,  and  then  they  all 
went  their  way. 

I  have  translated  this  curious  document  as  literally  as  the 
rugged  Bohemian  of  the  original  permitted.  The  document 
obviously  dates  from  the  time  of  the  Hussite  wars,  and  represents 
Hus  as  he  appeared  to  the  warriors  of  that  period.  The  account 
of  the  martyrdom  of  the  master  is  very  similar  to  that  of  the 
eye-witness,  Mladenovic.  Greater  stress  is  laid  on  the  brutalities 
committed  against  Hus,  and  it  is  attempted — contrary  to  facts — to 
connect  Hus  very  closely  with  the  origins  of  utraquism.  The 
writer  was  a  Bohemian  well  acquainted  with  Prague — as  is  proved 
by  his  quaint  allusion  to  the  duration  of  the  martyrdom  of  Hus. 
He  had  little  knowledge  of  Germany,  as  is  proved  by  various 
mistakes  concerning  German  personalities. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I  have  only  attempted  to  note  the  names  of  some  of  the  most 
prominent  works  that  have  been  written  on  Hus,  and  of  some  to 
which  I  have  devoted  particular  attention.  The  literature  dealing 
with  Hus  and  the  cognate  works  referring  to  Wycliffe,  which  I 
quite  omit,  amount  to  an  enormous  mass  of  volumes.  I  here  only 
mention  some  books  referring  mainly  to  Hus's  life  and  the  history 
of  Bohemia  at  his  time.  I  therefore  do  not  include  works  like 
Bishop  Creighton's  History  of  the  Papacy,  though  it  contains — next 
to  Mr.  Wratislaw's — the  best  account  of  Hus's  career  written  in 
English,  or  Dr.  Harnack's  Dogmengeschichte,  though  the  origin  of 
some  of  Hus's  views  is  expounded  here  more  clearly  than  anywhere 
else.  The  Bohemian  periodicals  entitled,  Journal  of  the  Bohemian 
Museum,  Bohemian  Historical  Journal,  Yearbook  of  the  Bohemian 
Society  of  Sciences,  and  Yearbook  of  the  Bohemian  Academy,  contain 
a  vast  amount  of  little-known  information  on  Hus  and  his  times. 
Messrs.  Jirecek,  Goll,  Nedoma,  Novotny,  Patera,  Gindely,  Kalousik 
and  many  others  have  contributed  valuable  articles  to  these 
reviews  on  the  subject  of  Hus. 

Ashbach,  Dr.  Joseph.     Geschichte  Kaiser  Sigmunds. 

Bezold,  Friedrich  von.     Zur  Geschichte  des  Hussitenthumes. 

Brezova,  Laurentius  de.  Historia  Hussitica,  ed.  Goll.  Fontes 
rerum  Bohemicarum  V. 

Caro,  J.     A  us  der  Kanzlei  Kaiser  Sigismunds. 

Casopis  Muse  a.  Kralovstvi  Ceskeho  (Journal  of  the  Royal 
Bohemian  Musem). 

Cesky  Casopis.     Historicky  (Bohemian  Historical  Journal). 

Denis,  Professeur  Ernest.     Huss  et  la  Guerre  des  Hussites. 

Dolanensis,  Stephen  of  Dolein.  Works  published  by  Pez  The- 
saurus Anecdotorum,  T.  IV. :  Medulla  Tritici  sive  Anti- 
wycleffus,  Antihussus,  Dialogus  volatilis  inter  aucam  et  passer  em, 
Liber  epistolaris  ad  Hussitas. 

Dvorsky,  Frantisek.  Pocatky  Kalicha  a  Artikule  Prazske  (The 
beginnings  of  the  chalice  and  the  articles  of  Prague). 

3*3 


384  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Flajshans.     Pisemnictvi  Ceske  (Bohemian  Literature). 

Flajshans.     Mistr  Jan  Hus. 

Flajshans.     Litevayni  cinnost  Mestva  Jana  Husi  (Literary  activity 
of  Master  John  Hus). 

Goll,  Professor  Jaroslav.     Cechy  a  Pyusy  v  styedoveku  (Bohemia 

and  Prussia  in  the  middle  ages). 
Gozzadini,  Giovanni.     Nanne  Gozzadini  e  Baldassayye  Cossa. 

Hardt,   Hermann  v.   der.     Magnum   (Ecumenicum   Constantiense 
concilium. 

Helfert,  Josef  Alexander.     Hus  und  Hieronymus. 

Hofler,  Dr.  K.     Geschichtschyeibey  dey  Hussitischen  Bewegung  in 

Bohmen. 
HOfler,  Dr.  K.     Magistev  Johannes  Hus. 
Hus,  Magister.     For  editions  of  works  of  Hus  and  translations,  see 

chapter  X. 
Janov,    Matthias    de.     Regulae    Veteyis   et   Novi    Testamenti,    ed. 

Kybal.     Only  one  volume  has  as  yet  appeared. 

Jirecek,  Josef.     Rukovet  k  Dejinam  Liteyatuvy  Ceske  (Handbook  of 

the  history  of  Bohemian  literature). 
Kalousek,  Dr.  Jcsef.     0  Histoyii  Kalicha  v  dobach  pyedhusitskych 

(On  the  history  of  the  chalice  in  prehussite  times). 

Kalousek,  Dr.   Josef.     0  potyebe  pyohloubiti  vedomosti  0  Husovi 
(On  the  necessity  of  further  study  of  Hus). 

Krummel,  Leopold.     Geschichte  dey  bohmischen  Refoymation. 
Krummel,  Leopold.     Utyaquisten  und  Taboyeten. 
Kybal,  Dr.  Vlastimil.     M.  Mate]  z  Janova. 
v  Lechler,  Dr.  Gotthard.     Johann  Hus. 
Lenfant,  Jaques.     Histoiye  du  Concile  de  Constance. 
Lenz,  Dr.  Antonin.     Uceni  Mistya  Jana  Husi  (The  teaching  of 

Master  John  Hus). 
Loserth,  Dr.  Johann.     Hus  und  Wicliff. 
Lutzow,  Count.     Bohemia,  a  Histoyical  Sketch. 
Lutzow,  Count.     A  Histoyy  of  Bohemian  Liteyatuye. 
Lutzow,  Count.     Pyague — mediaeval  town  series. 
Lutzow,  Count.     Lectmes  on  the  Histovians  of  Bohemia. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  385 

Morfill,  Professor  W.  R.     Slavonic  Literature. 

Nejedly,  Dr.  Zdenck.  Prameny  k  synodam  Strany  Prazske  a 
Taborske  (Documents  concerning  the  synods  of  the  parties  of 
the  Praguers  and  Taborites). 

Nejedly,  Dr.  Zdenek),  Dejepsis  Predhusitskeho  zpevit  v  Cechach 
(History  of  prehussite  singing  in  Bohemia). 

Nejedly,  Dr.  Zdenek.  Pocatky  Husitskeho  zpevu  (The  beginnings 
of  Hussite  singing). 

Palacky,  Frantisek.     Geschichte  von  Bohmen. 

Palacky,  Frantisek.  Die  Geschichte  des  Hussitenthumes  and  Prof. 
Hofler. 

Palacky,  Frantisek.  Documenta  Mag.  Joannis  Hus  vitam,  doc- 
trinam,  cansam  illuslrantia. 

Palacky,  Frantisek.  Urkundliche  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  des 
Hussitenkrieges. 

Richenthal,  Ulrich  von.  Chronik  des  Constanzer  Concils. 
Herausgegeben  von  Michael  Richard  Buck. 

Riezler,  Sigmund.     Die  literarischen  Widersacher  der  Papste. 

Schwab,  Dr.  Johann  Baptist.     Johannes  Gerson. 

Scriptores  rerum  Bohemicarum.  Cura  et  impensis  regiae 
Societatis  Scientarium  Bohemicae. 

Stitny,  Tomas.  Besedni  Reci  (Learned  Entertainments),  ed. 
Hattala. 

Stitny,  Tomas.  0  obecnych  vecech  krestanskych  (Of  general 
Christian  matters),  ed.  Erben. 

Sylvius,  Aeneas.     Historia  Bohemica. 

Theobaldus,  M.  Zacharias.  Hussitenkrieg,  darinen  begriffen  Das 
Leben,  die  Lehr,  der  Todt  M.  J.  Hussi. 

Tomek,  Professor  Wacslaw  Wladiwoj.  Dejepis  Mesta  Prahy 
(History  of  the  town  of  Prague). 

Tomek,  Professor  Wacslaw  Wladiwoj.  Deje  university  Prazske 
(History  of  the  university  of  Prague). 

Tomek,  Professor  Wacslaw  Wladiwoj.     Jan  Zizka. 

Tosti,  Don  Luigi.     Geschichte  des  Konziliums  von  Konstanz. 

Tschackert,  Dr.  Paul.     Peter  von  Ailli. 

Vestnik  ceske  akademie  (Yearbook  of  the  Bohemian  Academy). 

2  B 


386  THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 

Vestnik  ceske  spolecnosti   nauk   (Journal  of  the   Bohemian 
Society  of  Sciences). 

Vybor  z  Literatury  ceske  (Selections  from  Bohemian  Literature) . 

Wessenberg,   J.   H.   v.    Die  grossen  Kirchenversammlungen  des 
i$ten  und  i6ten  Jahrhunderts. 

Winter,  Dr.  Zikmund.     Zivot  cirkevni  v  bechach  (Church  life  in 

Bohemia). 
Winter,  Dr.  Zikmund.    Deje  vysokych  skol  Prazskych  (History  of 

the  high  schools  (university)  of  Prague. 

Winter,  Dr.  Zikmund.     0  zivote  na  vysokych  skolach  Pragskych 
(Life  at  the  high  schools  (university)  of  Prague). 

Workman,  Herbert  B.  M.  A.     The  Dawn  of  Reformation.     The  Age 
of  Hus. 

Wratislaw,  Rev.  A.  H.,  M.A.     The  Native  Literature  of  Bohemia 
in  the  Fourteenth  Century. 

Wratislaw,  Rev.  A.  H.,  M.A.    John  Hus. 

I  have  given  the  names  of  these  works  as  they  are  printed  on 
the  title-pages,  adding  an  English  translation  only  of  those  names 
which  in  the  original  are  in  Bohemian. 


INDEX 


Adamites,  sect  of  fanatics,  their  orgies, 
360;  "  turlupins "  of  France  their 
forerunners,  360;  destroyed  by  Zizka, 
360;  have  been  ignorantly  identified 
with  the  church-reformers,  360,  361 

Albert,  Duke  of  Austria,  succeeds  Sigis- 
mund  as  King  of  Bohemia,  368 

Albert  of  Unicov,  elected  Archbishop  of 
Prague,  147;   his  early  life,  148 

Albik,  Archbishop  of  Prague,  resigns  his 
office,  169;  his  traffic  in  ecclesiastical 
dignities,  170;  royal  commissioner  at 
church  conference,  173 

Alexander  V.,  Pope,  116;  bull  issued  by 
against  heretical  preachers,  121 

Anna,  or  Anezka,  of  Stitny,  43,  76 

Answer  to  the  Writings  of  Stanislas,  by 
Hus,  206,  207 

Antioch,  Patriarch  of,  his  answer  to  the 
Bohemian  nobles,  242,  243 

Appeal  from  the  Pope  to  Jesus  Christ,  by 
Hus,  202,  203 

Basle,  General  Council  at,  366;  Compacts 
accepted  by,  367;   and  signed,  367,  368 

Benedict  XIII.,  Pope,  (see  church, 
schism  in) 

Bernard  of  Citta  di  Castello,  appointed 
by  Council  of  Constance  to  report  on 
Hus.  222 

Bethlehem  Chapel,  in  Prague,  founded 
for  preaching  in  the  national  language, 
74;  Hus  appointed  preacher,  74; 
account  of,  75,  76;  attack  on,  161; 
famed  for  its  singing,  300 

Bible,  reading  of  and  devotion  to  among 
the  Bohemian  reformers,  3,  16,  27,  40, 
48,  350;  Bohemian  translations  of, 
297,  298 

Bila  Hora,  battle  of,  336,  345,  372 

Bohemia,  its  connection  with  the  Eastern 
Church,  10,  11;  persecution  in  1620, 
10;  becomes  part  of  the  domain  of 
the  Western  Church,  n;  its  state  of 
semi-independence,  n,  12;  sides  with 
the  German  Emperors,  12;  increasing 
power  of  Rome  in,  12,  13;  ill  conduct 
of  the  clergy  of,  14,  15;  connection  of 
reform  movement  with  national 
movement  in,  18;  efforts  of  the 
Emperor  Charles  IV.  to  reform  the 
clergy  in,  22 ;  Hus's  sermon  on  condi- 
tion of,  73;  Germans  in,  77,  78;  intel- 
lectual advance  of  in  the  beginning  of 

387 


the  fifteenth  century,  78;  its  attitude 
towards  the  Schism,  101,  102;  liberty 
granted  to  the  Bohemians  in  the 
university  by  King  Venceslas,  105, 
106;  reform  movement  in.  an  indi- 
genous one,  134;  synod  of  Bohemian 
clergy  in,  168,  170-173;  fails  to  restore 
peace,  173;  further  religious  warfare 
in,  176,  177;  its  evil  fame  as  a  here- 
tical country,  179;  the  religious  up- 
heaval in,  horror  of  simony  a  chief 
factor  in,  187;  nobles  of,  send  remon- 
strances about  Hus's  imprisonment, 
220,  221;  anxiety  concerning  Hus  in, 
234;  efforts  of  the  nobles  at  inter- 
vention, 236,  238-242;  succeed  in 
obtaining  the  promise  of  a  public 
hearing  for  Hus,  243 ;  further  remon- 
strances from,  to  Sigismund,  260; 
Hus's  letter  to  the  nation,  264-266; 
his  further  letters  to  the  Bohemians, 
269-273;  last  messages  to  his  friends 
in,  275;  national  language  of,  Hus's 
desire  to  preserve,  293,  294,  295; 
racial  antipathy  between  Bohemians 
and  Germans  in,  295 ;  question  of  lan- 
guage still  prominent  in,  296;  Hus's 
effort  to  introduce  church-song  in  the 
vernacular,  301;  women  of,  staunch 
adherents  of  Hus,  302;  relations  of 
with  England,  304;  rejoicings  of 
national  party  at  King  Vladislav's 
victory  at  Tannenberg,  305;  indigna- 
tion in  at  Hus's  death,  337;  national 
movement  in  becomes  more  revolu- 
tionary, 337;  protest  of  the  nobles 
forwarded  to  the  Council,  337,  338; 
confederation  of  nobles  for  the  defence 
of  liberty,  339;  hostile  confederation 
of  nobles  in,  339,  340 ;  council  appoints 
John  the  "  iron  "  to  suppress  heresy 
in,  342;  Taborite  movement  in.  346: 
death  of  the  king,  347;  short-lived 
Romanist  reaction  in,  349;  Pope 
proclaims  crusade  against,  350;  anger 
of  people  at  this  and  Sigismund's 
cruelty,  351;  national  uprising  in, 
352 ;  iconoclasm  and  cruelty  of  people, 
352;  in  possession  of  the  Hussites, 
356;  development  of  Hus's  doctrines 
in,  356;  fall  of  democracy  in  after  the 
battle  of  Lipan,  359;  communism  and 
anarchy  encouraged  in  by  the  Tabor- 
ites,  361;   almost  entirely  subdued  by 


388 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 


the  Praguers  and  Taborites,  363; 
meeting  of  parties  at  Caslav  in  1421, 
363;  deposition  of  Sigismund  and 
offer  of  crown  to  Polish  prince,  363; 
re-attacked  by  Sigismund,  and  de- 
livered by  Zizka,  363;  elects  Duke 
Witold  of  Lithuania  as  king,  363; 
success  of  its  armies,  365,  366;  em- 
bassy sent  by  to  Basle,  366;  Compacts 
accepted  at,  367;  political  reaction  in, 
367;  confederacy  of  the  nobles  and 
defeat  of  Taborites  by,  367;  Sigis- 
mund recognised  as  king,  368;  his 
death  and  successor,  368;  turbulent 
period  succeeding  the  death  of  King 
Albert,  368,  369;  rise  of  the  Bohemian 
Brethren  in,  369;  George  of  Podebrad 
elected  king,  369;  Vladislav,  Prince 
of  Poland,  king,  369;  his  son,  Louis, 
king,  370;  Ferdinand,  Archduke  of 
Austria,  king,  370;  loss  of  freedom 
under,  371 ;  establishment  of  serfdom 
in,  371 ;  establishment  ol  Jesuits  in, 
371;  Maximilian,  king,  371;  Rudolph 
II.  king,  371 ;  privileges  granted  to 
Protestants  in,  371;  final  loss  of 
religious  liberty  and  nationality,  372 

Bohemian  Brethren,  rise  of,  important 
part  played  by,  369 

Bohemians,  their  horror  of  simony,  187; 
their  love  of  theological  discussions, 
210;  their  hatred  of  Sigismund,  291, 
292;  their  racial  antipathy  towards 
the  Germans,  295;  their  ideal  stand- 
point, 335 

Bologna,  decision  of  university  as  regards 
the  burning  of  Wycliffe's  books,  132 

Book  against  the  Priest  Kitchen-master, 
by  Hus,  199,  312 

Bracciolini,  Poggio,  his  letter  describing 
Jerome  of  Prague's  death,  321,  331, 
332,  333;  present  as  papal  legate  dur- 
ing Jerome's  trial,  331,  332 

Calixtines,  moderate  or  utraquist  party, 
356;  attitude  of  to  teaching  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  356,  357;  endeavour 
to  extend  use  of  the  vernacular  in  the 
churches,  357;  Taborites  wage  war 
against,  364;  defeated  by  Zizka  at 
Horic,  364,  at  Kralove  Hradec,  and 
at  Malesov,  364 ;  truce  with  Taborites, 

364 
Calixtine  Church,  government  of,   357; 

its  difficult  position,  357 
Cambray,    Cardinal   of,    at   Hus's   trial, 

251,  254 
Caslav,  meeting  of  Bohemian  parties  at, 

in  1421,  363 
Celibacy  of  the  clergy,  opposition  to  in 

Bohemia,  12,  13 
Cenek  of  Wartenberg,  supreme  Burgrave, 


appointed  Queen  Sophia's  coadjutor, 
348 ;  helps  to  restore  peace  in  Prague, 
349;  joins  the  national  party,  351, 
352 ;  concludes  truce  with  Sigismund, 
352;  openly  espouses  the  Hussite 
cause,  356;  leads  the  Calixtines  at 
Horic,  364 

Charles  IV.,  emperor,  his  efforts  for  the 
reformation  of  the  Bohemian  clergy, 
22;  his  death,  22;  gives  protection  to 
Conrad  Waldhauser,  26,  27;  his  for- 
bearance towards  the  reformers,  30; 
presents  land  to  Milic  for  his  mission, 
34;  his  foundation  of  the  University 
of  Prague,  66,  67 

Chelcicky,  Peter,  moral  originator  of  the 
Bohemian  Brethren,  369 

Christian  of  Prachatice,  visits  Hus  in 
prison,  135;  Hus's  last  message  to, 
275 

Church,  the  Eastern,  its  connection  with 
Bohemia,  10,  n;  its  intense  animosity 
against  the  Roman  Church,  331; 
Bohemians  contemplate   union   with, 

369 

Church,  the  Western,  schism  in,  93-95, 
98  seq. ;  225,  226;  discussion  concern- 
ing, at  the  Council  of  Constance,  227 

Church-song,  participation  of  congrega- 
tion in,  298;  Hus's  views  concerning, 
299;  his  efforts  at  reform  of,  300,  301 ; 
opposition  to  by  Bohemian  prelacy, 
302 

Clux,  Sir  Hartung  van,  English  envoy, 
146 

Cobham,  Lord,  Hus  writes  to  for  copies 
of  Wycliffe's  works,  304 

Colonna,  Cardinal  Odone,  his  hatred  of 
Bohemia,  130;  excommunicates  Hus, 
133  (see  Martin  V.) 

Colonna,  Egydius,  Archbishop  of 
Bourges,  4 

Compacts,  as  accepted  at  the  Council  of 
Basle,  367;  signed  at  Iglau,  367,  368; 
repudiated  by  Nicholas  V.,  369 

Conrad  of  Vechta,  becomes  Archbishop 
of  Prague,  169;  letter  from  Bishop  of 
Litomysl  to,  172,  173;  his  answer  to 
John  Gerson's  letter,  178;  head  of  the 
Calixtine  Church,  357 

Constance,  General  Council  of,  183; 
French  and  English  representatives  at, 
183;  awaited  with  anxiety  by  Europe, 
183;  short  treatise  by  Hus,  known  as 
his  protest  to  the  Council,  204; 
appoints  commissioners  to  report  on 
Hus,  222;  German  princes  at,  225, 
226;  discussion  of  the  schism  at,  227; 
deposes  John  XXIIL,  227,  231; 
appoints  commissioners  to  examine 
Hus,  237;  publishes  declaration  against 
heresy,   238;    expostulations  received 


INDEX 


389 


from  Bohemian  nobles  by,  240,  241; 
evasive  answer  sent  by,  241;  refuses 
to  release  Hus,  but  consents  to  his 
public  trial,  243;  its  determination  to 
condemn  him,  245,  246;  Hus's  trial. 
246  seq. ;  Sigismund's  address  to  at 
its  close,  259;  its  decree  against  utra- 
quism,  266,  267;  Hus's  letter  about 
the  Council,  273;  its  final  proceedings 
against  Hus,  278-282;  its  sentence 
upon,  282;  was  the  council  justified 
in  accusing  Hus  of  heresy?  286-288; 
summons  Jerome  of  Prague  to  a  public 
abjuration,  329 ;  its  fresh  act  of  accusa- 
tion against,  331;  its  condemnation 
of  as  heretic,  332;  its  correspondence 
with  Sigismund  and  the  Bohemians, 
337;  protest  of  Bohemian  nobles  to, 
337,  338.  339;  appoints  John  the 
"  iron  "  to  suppress  heresy  in  Bohemia, 
342 

Contra  Anghcian  Johan.  Stokes,  by  Hus, 
165,  317 

Contra  Occult um  Adversarium,  by  Hus, 
165,  317 

Contra  Octo  Doclores,  by  Hus,  318 

Contra  Palec,  by  Hus,  318 

Contra  Praedicatorem  Plzntnsem,  by  Hus, 
3i8 

Contra  Stamslaum  de  Znoymo,  by  Hus. 
206,  318 

Cosmas,  Bohemian  chronicler.  12 

Cossa,  Baldassare,  Cardinal,  elected 
Pope,  95;  early  life  of,  96,  97;  his 
"  reign  of  terror  "  as  papal  legate,  97; 
his  arrest  of  the  Bohemian  envoys, 
99,  100  (see  John  XXIII.) 

Cunegunda  of  Wartenberg,  76 

D'Ailly,  Cardinal,  at  the  Council  of 
Constance,  208;  appointed  to  examine 
Hus,  237;  reasons  for  his  hostility  to 
Hus,  237;  his  scholastic  duel  with  Hus 
during  the  latter's  trial,  248;  de- 
nounces Hus  as  an  enemy  of  the  tem- 
poral authorities,  251,  253;  attacks 
him  again  about  Wycliffe.  255,  256; 
his  final  charge  to  Hus,  256,  257;  at 
the  final  trial,  279 

Dcerka  (daughter),  one  of  Hus's  best 
works,  186,  315,  317 

De  Corpore  Christi,  by  Hus,  84,  92.  316, 
317 

De  Ecclesia,  by  Hus,  90,  199-202,  317; 
accusations  against  founded  on,  222, 
224,  252,  253   254 

De  Sanguine  Christi,  by  Hus,  84,  92, 
316,  317 

Didacus,  the  monk,  sent  to  entrap  Hus. 
217,  218 

Domazlice,  Hussite  victory  at,  366 

"  Donation  of  Constantine,"  1,  7 


Elias,  John,  at  the  Church  Conference  in 
Prague,  173 

England,  its  sympathy  with  the 
Bohemian  movement,  133,  134;  is 
favourable  to  the  Council  of  Constance, 
183;  altramontane  attitude  of  it-, 
representatives,  183 

Ernest  of  Pardubice,  first  Archbishop  of 
Prague,  14,  22,  25,  26 

Expositura  Decalogi,  by  Hus,  316,  317 

Ferdinand,  Archduke  of  Austria,  King 
of  Bohemia,  370;  endeavours  to 
strengthen  the  Roman  cause,  370; 
deprives  the  Bohemian  towns  of  their 
privileges,  371;  establishes  Jesuits  in 
Bohemia,  371 

Ferdinand,  Archduke  of  Styria,  heir  to 
the  Bohemian  throne,  371;  his  perse- 
cuting policy,  372 

Filastre,  Cardinal,  appointed  to  examine 
Hus,  237 

France,  its  struggle  with  the  Papacy,  4; 
and  the  schism,  99,  101 ;  embassy  sent 
by  to  King  Venceslas  concerning,  104, 
105;  its  opposition  at  first  to  the 
Council  at  Constance.  183;  finally 
sends  representatives,  183 

Frederick  II.,  Emperor  of  Germany,  his 
struggle  with  the  Pope,  2 

Frederick,  Burgrave  of  Nuremberg,  at 
Constance,  226 

Frederick,  Duke  of  Austria,  his  agree- 
ment with  John  XXIII.,  211,  212; 
arrives  at  Constance,  226;  helps  the 
pope  to  escape,  229;  imperial  ban 
pronounced  on,  230;  his  defeat  by  the 
Swiss,  230;  makes  his  submission  to 
the  Emperor,  230 

George  of  Podebrad,  utraquist  king, 
takes  city  of  the  Taborites,  359; 
leader  of  the  national  party.  368; 
obtains  guardianship  of  Ladislas 
Posthumus,  368;  elected  King  of 
Bohemia,  369;  war  with  King  Matthias 
of  Hungary,  369 

Germans,  in  Bohemia,  Hus  preaches 
against  oppression  of,  73,  77;  at  the 
University  of  Prague.  77,  78;  their 
attitude  during  the  schism,  101,  102; 
their  accusations  against  the  "  Wycliff- 
ites,"  102,  103;  their  anger  at  the 
king's  decree,  107;  their  departure 
from  Prague,  109,  no;  racial  anti- 
pathy between  Bohemians  and,  295; 
German  inhabitants  leave  Prague.  348 

Germany,  its  struggle  with  the  Papacy, 
2,  3,  4;  and  the  Schism,  101,  225; 
German  princes  at  the  Council  of 
Constance,  225,  226 

Gerson,   John,   denounces  the  heretical 


390 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 


views  spreading  in  Bohemia,  177,  178, 
179;  at  the  Council  of  Constance, 
208,  223,  230;  on  the  recantation  of 
heretics,  330 

Gesta  Christi,  earliest  printed  work  of 
Hus,  312 

Gottlieben,  Castle  of,  Hus's  cruel  im- 
prisonment in,  236,  237 

Gregory  XII.,  Pope  (see  church,  schism 
in) 

Gregory,  Brother,  founder  of  the 
Bohemian  Brethren,  369 

Hanus  of  Lipa,  220 

Henning  of  Baltenhagen,  rector  of  Prague 
University,  complains  to  Venceslas  of 
the  "  Wycliffites,"  103,  104,  323 

Henry,  Lord,  of  Chlum,  surnamed 
Lacembok,  sent  by  king  to  protect 
Hus,  208 

Henry,  Lord,  of  Lazan,  invites  Hus  to 
his  castle,  180;  account  of  his  after 
life  and  death,  180 

Hiibner,  John,  his  "  articles "  against 
Wycliffe,  79,  80 

Hus,  John,  and  the  Eastern  Church,  n; 
an  ardent  Bohemian  patriot,  17;  his 
indebtedness  to  Wycliffe  exaggerated, 
18-22,  118;  his  extensive  learning,  20, 
91 ;  his  great  qualities,  63 ;  his  birth, 
home,  and  parentage,  64,  65 ;  anecdote 
of,  65;  at  Prague  University,  66;  his 
student  days,  69,  70;  admitted  to 
college  in  the  fruit  market,  70;  anec- 
dote of,  70 ;  his  early  adherence  to  the 
Catholic  Church,  71;  his  fellow 
students,  71;  his  academic  honours, 
72 ;  becomes  rector  of  the  University, 
72;  ordained  priest,  72;  his  talents 
as  a  preacher,  73;  preaches  against 
German  oppression,  73;  appointed 
preacher  at  the  Bethlehem  Chapel,  74 ; 
attracts  numerous  disciples,  76 ;  incurs 
hostility  of  the  German  inhabitants  of 
Prague,  77 ;  his  study  of  Wycliffe,  79 ; 
his  first  theological  controversy,  79- 
81 ;  appointed  preacher  to  the  Synod, 
82;  attacks  conduct  of  Bohemian 
priests,  82;  appointed  court  chaplain 
and  confessor  to  the  Queen,  82;  sent 
to  investigate  into  the  miracles  per- 
formed at  Wilsnack,  82-84;  hatred  of 
the  priests  towards,  84;  accusations 
brought  against,  85,  86;  his  letter  to 
the  archbishop,  86,  87;  close  of  the 
academic  period  of  his  life,  87;  his 
numerous  writings,  88;  his  translation 
of  Wycliffe's  Trialogus,  89;  his  Super 
IV.  Sententiarum,  90,  91,  92;  other 
Latin  works,  84,  92;  interferes  on 
behalf  of  the  imprisoned  Bohemian 
envoys,  100;    supports  the  Bohemian 


members  of  the  university  in  favour 
of  neutrality  in  regard  to  the  schism, 
103;  decree  against  signed  by  the 
archbishop,  103;  King  Venceslas 
threatens  him,  104;  receives  the  good 
news  of  the  king's  decree  of  Kutna 
Hora,  106;  accused  of  wishing  to 
expel  the  German  students  from 
Prague,  107,  no,  in;  elected  rector 
of  the  university,  114;  increased 
animosity  of  the  parish  priests  to- 
wards, 114;  fresh  accusations  brought 
against  by  Zbynek,  118,  119;  sum- 
moned to  appear  before  the  court  of 
the  archbishop,  120;  his  sermon  in 
response  to  the  papal  bull,  124; 
appeals  to  the  pope,  124,  125;  is  ex- 
communicated by  Zbynek,  125;  pro- 
tests against  the  burning  of  Wycliffe's 
books,  127;  is  summoned  to  appear 
before  the  papal  tribunal,  130;  sup- 
port of  by  the  court,  130,  131 ;  decides 
not  to  take  the  Italian  journey,  132; 
his  letter  to  Richard  Wiche,  135,  136; 
his  dispute  with  the  archbishop  is 
settled  by  arbitration,  141,  142,  143; 
renewed  bitterness  between,  143;  his 
letter  to  the  pope,  143;  his  dispute 
with  the  English  envoy  Stokes,  146, 
147,  165;  invites  to  a  disputation  con- 
cerning the  sale  of  indulgences,  151; 
his  speech,  151;  condemnatory  judg- 
ment passed  against  him  by  the  papal 
courts,  153;  meets  the  leaders  of  the 
Roman  party  at  the  Castle  of  Zebrak, 
I54»  x55»  pleads  on  behalf  of  the 
three  youths  condemned  for  raising  a 
disturbance,  156,  157;  his  moderation 
prevents  a  catastrophe,  158,  159;  is 
further  excommunicated,  159;  after 
some  indecision  he  leaves  Prague  for  a 
while,  161,  162,  163;  writings  dating 
from  this  period,  164,  165;  his  letter 
explaining  his  reasons  for  leaving 
Prague,  167;  his  treatise  on  simony, 
170;  and  the  Bohemian  Synod,  171; 
denounced  by  the  Bishop  of  Litomysl, 
172,  173;  retires  to  Kozi  Hradek,  175; 
his  popularity  among  the  Bohemians, 
176;  Bohemian  letter  of  June  10,  1415, 
176;  pays  short  visit  to  Prague,  his 
position  there  becomes  more  difficult, 
179;  accepts  invitation  to  Krakovec, 
180;  negotiations  concerning  his 
journey  to  Constance,  184;  Sigis- 
mund's  promise  of  safe  conduct  to, 
184;  is  warned  not  to  go,  185;  his 
farewell  letters,  185;  the  court  and 
nobles  provide  means  for  his  journey, 
185;  he  leaves  Prague,  186;  works 
written  by  during  the  previous  two 
years,    186-207    (see   under   Simony); 


INDEX 


39i 


extracts  from  his  sermons  on  the 
Gospels,  196-198;  his  De  Ecclesia, 
199-202;  his  Apellatio,  202-204;  other 
Latin  works,  204-207;  his  treatise  on 
the  pretentions  of  the  Bohemian 
clergy,  204,  205;  his  affirmation  that 
Christ,  not  the  pope,  is  the  head  of 
the  Church,  207;  arrives  at  Nurem- 
berg, 209;  sends  his  friend  to  receive 
letter  of  safe-conduct  for  him,  and 
proceeds  direct  to  Constance,  209,  210; 
his  first  letter  after  arrival  at,  210; 
accusation  against  placed  on  the  door 
of  the  church,  211;  is  surrounded  by 
enemies  and  spies,  212,  213;  pope 
promises  him  protection,  214;  circula- 
tion of  false  tales  about,  215;  visit  of 
the  cardinals  to,  216;  his  dwelling- 
place  surrounded  by  armed  men,  217; 
his  reply  to  the  cardinals  in  the  pope's 
palace,  217;  his  interview  with  the 
monk  Didacus,  218;  his  arrest,  219; 
taken  to  the  dungeon  of  the  Domini- 
can monastery,  220;  commissioners 
appointed  to  report  on,  222;  asks  to 
be  allowed  a  lawyer  for  his  defence, 
223;  is  refused,  223 ;  falls  dangerously 
ill,  223;  continued  prosecution  of, 
224;  concocted  accusations  against, 
233,  234;  his  letter  to  the  citizens  of 
Prague,  234;  has  a  few  friends  to 
visit  him,  235;  placed  in  custody  of 
the  Bishop  of  Constance,  236;  cruel 
treatment  of,  236,  237;  his  examina- 
tion by  the  commissioners,  238; 
intervention  of  Bohemian  nobles  on 
behalf  of,  238-241;  promise  extracted 
from  council  of  his  having  a  public 
hearing,  243;  is  brought  to  trial,  246; 
is  not  allowed  to  speak,  247;  his 
second  day  of  trial  and  scholastic  duel 
with  D'Ailly,  248,  249;  further  wit- 
nesses brought  against,  250;  endeavour 
to  prove  his  dependence  on  Wycliffe, 
250;  his  answer  to  the  Cardinal  of 
Cambray,  251;  his  third  day  of  trial, 
252;  accusations  against,  founded  on 
De  Ecclesia  and  other  works,  253,  254, 
256;  his  speech  concerning  unworthy 
kings,  254,  255 ;  bis  answer  to  D'Ailly 
about  Wycliffe,  255,  256;  his  final 
speech  of  defence,  257;  his  answer  to 
those  who  urge  him  to  recant,  257; 
corresponds  with  "the  father,"  261; 
is  aware  of  Sigismund's  treachery, 
263 ;  his  letter  to  the  Bohemian  nation, 
264-266;  his  letter  on  the  subject  of 
utraquism,  268,  269;  his  books  con- 
demned to  be  burnt,  269;  his  further 
letters  to  the  Bohemians,  269-273;  his 
farewell  letter  to  Prague  University, 
•273,  274;   his  messages  to  his  various 


friends,  275;  last  efforts  made  to 
induce  him  to  recant,  276;  is  taken  to 
the  Cathedral,  278;  is  not  allowed  to 
defend  himself,  279,  280;  final  pro- 
ceedings against,  280-282;  sentence 
passed  upon,  282;  his  degradation 
and  deconsecration,  282;  is  led  to 
the  stake,  283;  account  of  his  last 
moments,  283-285;  discussion  as  to 
whether  he  was  justly  accused  of 
heresy,  286-288;  his  patriotic  devotion 
to  his  own  country  and  language,  293, 
-94.  295;  the  first  to  attempt  to 
establish  a  recognised  written  lan- 
guage, 296;  revises  the  Bohemian 
translations  of  the  Bible,  298;  his 
character  antagonistic  to  that  of 
Wycliffe,  299;  his  views  on  church- 
singing,  299;  endeavours  to  replace 
the  latin  singing  in  his  church  by 
songs  in  the  national  language,  301; 
objections  to  raised  by  Bohemian 
prelacy,  302;  hymns  composed  by, 
303;  his  efforts  to  establish  relations 
with  foreign  countries,  304;  writes  to 
Lord  Cobham,  304;  relations  with 
King  Vladislav,  304,  305 ;  sends  latter 
congratulatory  letter  on  his  victory, 
305,  306,  307;  his  letter  on  church- 
reform  to,  308,  309;  his  fame  as  a 
writer,  312  {see  below  under  works 
by);  portraits  of,  318-320;  defence  of 
by  Bohemian  nobles,  337,  338; 
development  of  his  doctrines  in 
Bohemia,  356  seq.;  no  one  found  to 
be  his  true  successor,  362 

Hus,  John,  works  by,  84-92,  164, 
165,  186-207,  310-318;  disappearance 
of  some,  311;  earliest  work  printed, 
312;  danger  incurred  in  publishing 
as  late  as  19th  century,  314,  315; 
periods  of  Hus's  literary  activity, 
317  (see  under  separate  works) 

Husinec,  birthplace  of  Hus,  64;  national 
feeling  strongly  developed  in  that  part 
of  the  country,  293 

Huska,  .Martin,  surnamed  Loquis,  his 
fanaticism  and  eloquence,  359,  360 

Hussites,  the  Hussite  movement,  first 
check  to  the  autocratic  tendencies  of 
Rome,  3;  origin  of  Hussitism,  17,  170; 
discord  among  the  Hussites,  344; 
movement  for  a  time  has  iconoclastic 
character,  352;  agreement  among 
Hussites  on  matters  of  reform,  354; 
the  Hussites  obtain  possession  of 
nearly  all  Bohemia,  356;  the  Hussite 
war,  the  first  in  the  world's  history 
fought  for  intellectual  interests,  335; 
meeting  of  contending  Hussites  after 
the  battle  of  the  Vysehrad,  362,  363; 
peace  between,  364;  great  meeting  at, 


392 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 


"  Spitalske  Pole,"  364;  negotiations 
entered  into  with  by  Sigismund  and 
the  Roman  Church,  366 ;  victory  over 
Romanists  at  Domazlice,  366;  they 
formulate  their  demands  at  the 
Council  of  Basle,  366;  Compacts  as 
determined  at,  367 

Hussite  doctrine  formulated  in  141 7, 
343,  344  (see  Articles  of  Prague) 

Hymns,  Bohemian,  introduction  into  his 
church  by  Hus,  301,  302;  famous 
Hussite  songs,  303 

Indulgences,  sale  of,  71 ;  disturbances  in 
Prague,  an  account  of,  149  seq. ;  dis- 
putation upon  and  Hus's  speech,  151; 
Jerome  of  Prague  takes  part  in  dis- 
cussion, 325 

Infallibility,  as  opposed  to  the  individual 
conscience,  261,  262 

Jacob  or  Jacobellus  of  Stribro  (Mies), 
70,  71,  135;  draws  up  document  to  be 
forwarded  to  the  synod,  171;  174, 
221 ;  his  introduction  of  utraquism  at 
Prague,  232,  268;  and  the  formulation 
of  the  Hussite  doctrine,  343;  his  more 
"  advanced  "  views,  357 

Jenzenstein,  John  of,  Archbishop  of 
Prague,  festival  founded  by  in  honour 
of  the  Virgin,  46 ;  72 

Jerome  of  Prague,  n,  71,  89;  King 
Venceslas  threatens  him  for  his  heresy, 
104;  131;  speaks  against  sale  of  indul- 
gences, 151;  connives  at  grotesque 
procession,  153;  at  Constance,  235; 
accused  by  Sigismund,  259,  260;  con- 
trasted with  Hus,  321,  322;  his 
parentage,  322;  goes  to  Oxford  and 
studies  Wycliffe,  322;  his  roving  life, 
323;  at  Kutna  Hora,  323;  his  violent 
denunciation  of  the  clergy,  324; 
denounced  as  a  heretic  and  summoned, 
324;  escapes  from  Vienna,  325;  takes 
part  in  the  discussion  concerning 
indulgences,  325;  leaves  Prague  and 
proceeds  to  Poland,  325;  his  appear- 
ance and  manners,  325-6;  goes  to 
Constance,  326;  endeavours  to  escape 
and  is  captured  and  imprisoned,  326; 
Hus's  mention  of,  326-7;  his  recanta- 
tion, 327;  his  letter  to  Lacko  of 
Kravar,  327,  328;  his  public  abjura- 
tion, 329,  330;  expresses  his  regret  at 
having  recanted,  331;  new  act  of 
accusation  against,  331;  his  trial, 
332;  description  of  his  eloquence  by 
Bracciolini,  332 ;  his  death,  332,  333 

Jodocus,  Margrave  of  Moravia,  124; 
chosen  as  King  of  the  Romans,  137; 
his  death,  141 

John  XXIII.,  his  election,  95 ;  his  policy, 


98;  Hus  appeals  to,  125;  receives 
letters  from  Venceslas  and  Queen 
Sophia,  129;  issues  bull  supporting 
the  church  party  and  summoning  Hus 
to  appear,  130;  receives  remonstrances 
from  the  king  and  queen,  130,  131; 
his  cautious  policy,  137,  138;  his 
struggle  for  temporal  dominion,  149; 
grants  plenary  indulgence  to  those 
who  take  part  in  war  against  King  of 
Naples,  149;  declares  all  Wycliffe's 
works  heretical,  169;  his  negotiations 
with  Sigismund  concerning  a  general 
council,  181;  consents  to  it  being  held 
at  Constance,  183;  his  agreement  with 
Duke  Frederick  of  Austria,  211,  212; 
his  journey  to  Constance,  212; 
promises  protection  to  Hus,  214;  his 
part  in  Hus's  arrest,  219;  offers  bribe 
to  Sigismund,  226;  his  deposition, 
227,  228;  escapes  from  Constance, 
229;  sentence  pronounced  on  by 
council,  231 ;  his  last  years  and  death, 
231;  his  tomb,  231;  Hus's  letter  con- 
cerning, 271 

John,  Bishop  of  Litomysl,  opponent  of 
church  -  reform,  144;  his  excessive 
cruelty,  144,  145;  candidate  for  Arch- 
bishopric of  Prague,  148;  letter  to 
Archbishop  Conrad,  172,  173;  his 
bitter  enmity  towards  Hus,  212,  213; 
tries  to  deprive  him  of  his  liberty,  217; 
assistance  given  by  to  Hus's  enemies, 
234;  accusation  against  by  Bohemian 
nobles,  241;  brings  witnesses  against 
Hus,  250;  his  letter  to  King  Venceslas, 
337;  appointed  by  council  to  suppress 
heresy  in  Bohemia,  342;  his  estates 
seized  by  the  national  party,  343 

John,  Bishop  of  Liibeck,  appointed  by 
Council  of  Constance  to  report  on 
Hus,  222 

John,  Burgrave  of  Nuremberg,  at 
Constance,  226 

John  of  Brogni,  Cardinal-bishop  of 
Ostia,  his  correspondence  with  Hus, 
261 

John,  Lord,  of  Chlum,  accompanies  Hus 
to  Constance,  208;  at  Biberach,  210; 
his  anger  with  the  cardinals,  216; 
accompanies  Hus  to  the  pope's  palace, 
217;  at  the  interview  between  Hus 
and  the  monk,  218;  appeals  to  the 
pope  against  Hus's  arrest,  219;  affixes 
protests  against  on  the  gates  of  the 
cathedral,  220;  and  writes  to  Sigis- 
mund, 220 ;  appeals  to  Sigismund  at  the 
time  of  Hus's  trial,  246;  Hus's  letter 
to  about  his  trial,  247;  his  generous 
speech  and  action  in  support  of  Hus, 
251,  252,  258;  overhears  Sigismund's 
speech  to  the  council,  258;   Hus's  last 


INDEX 


393 


message  concerning,  274-5;  visits 
Hus  in  prison,  276 

John  the  elder,  Lord  of  Usti,  upholder 
of  reform,  168 

John  titular),  patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, appointed  by  Council  of  Con- 
stance to  report  on  Hus,  222 

John  of  Jandum,  5,  6 

John  of  Jesenice,  chosen  as  representa- 
tive oi  Hus  at  the  papal  court,  13;; 
protests  against  Palec's  statement  con- 
cerning the  Roman  Church,  174 

John  of  Maintz,  Elector  Archbishop, 
rides  into  Constance  in  full  armour, 
226 

John  (or  Hanus)  of  Millheim,  founder  of 
Bethlehem  Chapel,  74 

John  of  Paris,  4 

John  of  Pribram,  his  work  on  the 
Taborites,  361 ;  his  own  idea  of  a 
national  church,  361,  362 

John  of  Reinstein,  nicknamed  "  Kar- 
dinal,"  sent  by  King  Venceslas  as 
envoy  to  Pisa,  101;  represents  the 
University  of  Prague  at  the  Council  of 
Constance,  208;  not  allowed  a  hearing, 
208 

John  of  Rokycan,  chosen  by  Estates  of 
Bohemia  as  archbishop,  357;  at  the 
meeting  at  "  Spitalske  Pole,"  364,  365 ; 
at  the  Council  of  Basle,  366;  pope 
refuses  to  recognise,  368,  369 

John  of  Stekna,  famous  preacher,  71 

John  of  Zelivo,  Hussite  and  utraquist, 
his  popularity  in  Prague,  346;  his 
sermon,  346;  leads  the  faithful  to  the 
town  hall,  346;  struggle  with  priests 
at  St.  Stephen,  346;  is  struck  by  stone. 
347;  denounces  Sigismund,  347,  348; 
his  fanaticism,  359 

Joseph  II..  Emperor,  his  "  Toleranz 
Patent,"  10 

Kanis,  Peter,  fanatical  preacher,  360 
Kaplir,  Catherine,  of  Sulevic,  76 
Konopist,  truce  between  Taborites  and 

Calixtines  concluded  at,  364 
Korybut,    Prince,    of   Lithuania,    repre- 
sentative   of    the    elected     King    of 
Bohemia,  363;    mediates  between  the 
contending  Hussite  parties,  364;  leads 
the  Calixtines  to  battle,  365 
Kozi  Hradek,  tower  of,  Hus  at,  167,  175 
Kralove  Hradec  (Koniggratz)  surrenders 

to  Sigismund,  352 
Krasa,  John,  cruel  sentence  passed  on  by 

Sigismund,  351 
Kristan    of    Prachatice,    rector    of    the 
university,  conference  held  at  house  of. 

1/3,  174' 
Kriz,    part    founder   of    the    Bethlehem 
Chapel,  74,  139,  140 


Kutna  Hora  (Kuttenberg),  famous  decree 
of,  105;  French  embassy  at  for  dis- 
cussion of  Schism,  323;  Hus  and 
Jerome  at,  323;  Sigismund  receives 
envoys  from  Prague  at,  352;  subdued 
by  the  Praguers,  363 

Lacko  of   Kravar,   Jerome   of    Prague's 

letter  to,  327,  328 
Ladislas,   King  of  Naples,  supporter  nt 

Gregory  XII.,    invades   papal   states, 

149 
Ladislas  Posthumus,  son  of  King  Albert 

of  Bohemia,  368;   his  death,  369 
Lefl,  Lord  Henry,  Hus's  last  message  to, 

275  3    . 

Leipzig,     university    founded     at,     no 
"Letter  of  majesty,"  granting  privileges 

to  Lutherans,  signed  by  Rudolph  II.. 

37i 
Letters,   Latin   and   Bohemian,  by  Hus, 

editions  and  translations  of,  313,  314; 

Constance  Letters,  318 
Lipauy,  defeat  of  Taborites  at,  359,  367 
Lombard,  Peter,  his  Sententiarum  Libri 

quatuor,  Hus's  great  work  on,  90-92 
Loserth,  Professor,  on  Hus  and  Wycliffe, 

18,  20 
Louis,  son  of  King  Vladislav,  succeeds 

his  father,  370;   killed  at  the  battle  of 

Mohac,  370 
Louis  of  Bavaria,  King  of  the  Germans, 

his  resistance  to  Rome,  4,  5 
Louis,  Count   Palatine,   arrives  at  Con- 
stance, 225,  226;  conducts  Hus  to  the 

stake,  283 
Luther,  Martin,  translation  by  of  some 

of  Hus's  letters,  312 

Margaret  of  Moravia,  33 

Margrave  of  Baden,  at  Constance,  226 

Marik,  or  Mauritius  de  Praga,  opponent 
of  church  -  reform,  treatise  of  Hus 
against,  165.  166 

Marsiglio  of  Padua,  his  views  on  the 
temporal  power  of  the  pope,  etc.,  as 
stated  in  his  Defensor  Pacis,  5-9 

Martin  V.  proclaims  crusade  against 
Bohemia,  350;  enters  into  negotiations 
with  the  Hussites,  366;  consents  to 
general  council  at  Basle,  366 

Matthew  of  Janov,  reformer,  3,  4,  18,  27, 
32,  42,  47;  his  birth  and  early  life,  48; 
his  academic  honours  and  poverty,  49; 
receives  a  canonry  of  Prague,  49; 
other  dignities  conferred  on,  50;  views 
preached  by,  opposed  to  the  teaching 
of  Rome,  50;  summoned  to  appear 
before  the  archiepiscopal  court  and 
forced  to  retract.  51;  continues  his 
bold  preaching,  51,  52;    further  pro- 


394 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 


eeedings  against,  promises  of  obedience 
and  reinstatement,  52 ;  a  change  comes 
over  him  and  he  renounces  all  his 
earthly  ambitions,  52-54;  he  continues 
to  preach  against  abuses,  55;  his 
death,  55;  summary  of  his  Regulae 
Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti,  55-60; 
character  of  his  work  in  general,  60, 
61 ;  his  importance  in  connection  with 
the  Hussite  movement,  61,  62 ;  63 
Matthias,   King  of  Hungary,  war  with 

Bohemia,  369 
Maximilian,  King  of  Bohemia,  371 
Meissen,  Margrave  of,  ravages  Bohemia, 

73 

Mendicant  orders,  their  avarice  and 
immorality,  and  complaint  against, 
by  Conrad  Waldhauser,  24;  their 
persecution  of  the  latter,  25,  26; 
their  enmity  towards  the  reformer 
Milic,  31,  32 

Mensi  Zrcadlo  (the  Smaller  Mirror)  by 
Hus,  186 

Michael  de  causis,  opponent  of  Hus, 
141;  his  bad  reputation,  152;  ap- 
pointed advocate  at  the  papal  law 
courts,  152,  159,  160;  places  accusa- 
tion against  Hus  on  door  of  church 
at  Constance,  211;  he  and  Palec 
prepare  articles  against  Hus,  213,  214; 
circulates  false  tale  about  Hus,  215; 
his  part  in  the  latter's  arrest,  219; 
accusations  against,  prepared  by,  222 ; 
seizes  opportunity  of  Hus's  illness  and 
weakness  to  confront  him  with  op- 
ponents, 223,  224;  his  false  accusa- 
tions against  Hus,  233,  234 

Milic,  John,  of  Kromerize,  reformer,  his 
early  life  and  piety,  27,  28;  made 
canon  of  St.  Vitus  in  Prague,  28; 
renounces  all  his  worldly  honours,  28; 
his  apostolic  poverty  and  preaching, 
28,  29;  denounces  emperor  as  anti- 
christ, 30;  twice  imprisoned  and 
released,  30,  31;  his  letter  to  the 
pope,  31,  32;  his  asceticism,  32;  his 
mission  to  fallen  women,  33,  34; 
proceedings  taken  against  at  instiga- 
tion of  the  parish  priests,  34,  35,  36; 
he  appeals  to  the  pope  and  is  declared 
innocent,  36;  his  death,  37,  63 

"  Mohamedans,"  nickname  given  to  the 
opponents  of  reform,  177 

Moravia,  allied  Hussites  march  to  con- 
quest of,  365;  campaign  stopped  by 
death  of  Zizka,  365 

Nebovid,  victory  of  Zizka  over  Sigismund 

at,  363 
Newman,  Cardinal,  on  poverty,  2 
Nicholas   V.   repudiates   the  Compacts, 

369 


Nicholas  of  Hus,  345,  346;  leads  the 
Taborites  against  Prague,  348 

Nicholas  of  Pelhrimov,  Calixtine  bishop, 
359;  spokesman  for  the  Taborites  at 
the  meeting  of  contending  Hussites, 
363 

Nicholas  of  Velenovic,  surnamed  Abra- 
ham, accused  of  heresy  and  defended 
by  Hus,  86,  87 

Nominalists  and  Realists,  animosity  of 
the  former  against  Hus,  249,  250 

Nuremburg,  Hus's  stay  at,  209 

Ortlwgraphia  Bohemica,  by  Hus,  295,  296, 
317 

Palec,  Stephen,  sent  as  envoy  to  Pisa, 
99;  arrested  by  order  of  Cardinal 
Cossa,  and  subsequently  liberated, 
99,  100;  becomes  an  opponent  of  Hus, 
140;  at  the  disputation  concerning  the 
sale  of  indulgences,  151 ;  at  the  church 
conference  in  Prague,  173;  his  bad 
faith,  174;  leaves  Bohemia  and  stirs 
up  public  opinion  against  Hus,  175; 
arrives  at  Constance,  2r3;  he  and 
Michael  de  causis  prepare  articles 
against  Hus,  213,  214;  circulates 
false  tale  about  Hus,  215;  his  part 
in  Hus's  arrest,  219;  his  false  accusa- 
tions against  Hus,  222,  233;  at  Hus's 
trial,  254,  255,  258,  280 

Papacy,  its  struggle  with  Germany,  2, 
3 ;  with  the  Kings  of  France,  4 ;  views 
concerning  temporal  power  of,  5-9 

Peter  of  Mladenovic,  spokesman  of  the 
Bohemian  nobles  at  the  Council  of 
Constance,  240,  241,  242,  243;  Hus's 
farewell  gift  to,  275;  his  account  of 
Hus's  last  moments,  283-285;  pre- 
serves copies  of  Hus's  writings,  311; 
on  the  governing  body  of  the  Calixtine 
church,  357;  spokesman  for  the  uni- 
versity at  meeting  of  contending 
Hussites,  363 

Peter  of  S.  Angelo,  Cardinal,  his  con- 
demnation of  Hus,  153,  159 

Pisa,  meeting  of  cardinals  at,  to  negotiate 
concerning  the  Schism,  95, 101 ;  envoys 
sent  to  by  King  Venceslas,  99,  100,  101 

Poland,  reform  movement  in,  305; 
Jerome  of  Prague  in,  325 

Poles,  part  played  by  in  the  Hussite 
wars,  304 

Postilla,  the,  by  Hus,  196-198,  310; 
editions  of  313,  315,  317 

Prague,  foundation  of  bishopric  of,  n; 
Cathedral  of,  charged  with  papal 
"provisions"  13;  archdeaconal  in- 
spection held  in  1379,  1380,  14,  15; 
effect  of  Conrad  Walhauser's  preaching 
in,  23,  24;  hostility  between  Germans 


INDEX 


395 


and  Bohemians  in,  77,  7S;  popular 
demonstrations  in,  115,  116;  hatred 
of  the  clergy  among  the  people,  125, 
126;  placed  under  an  interdict,  139; 
disturbance  in,  on  account  of  sale  of 
indulgences,  149  seq. ;  grotesque  pro- 
cession through  the  streets  of,  153, 154; 
execution  of  three  youths  for  protest- 
ing against  simony,  156,  157;  interdict 
against,  put  into  execution,  160,  161; 
anxiety  in  concerning  Hus's  fate,  232; 
introduction  of  utraquism  at,  232; 
struggle  between  priests  and  heretics 
at  St.  Stephen,  347;  attack  on  the 
town  hall  led  by  Zizka,  347;  expulsion 
from  of  non-utraquist  priests,  348; 
German  inhabitants  leave  the  town, 
348;  march  of  Taborites  upon,  348; 
fury  of  people  at  introduction  of 
German  mercenaries,  348;  citizens 
seize  the  Vysehrad,  348;  large  part  of 
city  destroyed,  349;  peace  restored, 
349;  citizens  endeavour  to  come  to 
agreement  with  Sigismund,  352;  send 
to  the  Taborites  to  come  to  their  aid, 
353;  city  surrounded  by  the  "cru- 
saders," 353;  the  enemy  is  repulsed, 
354;  arrival  and  death  of  Sigismund 
in,  368 ;  Roman  archbishopric  re  - 
established,  371 
Prague,  Articles  of,  343,  344;  approved 
by  the  utraquist  nobles,  355;  meeting 
between  Romanists  and  Bohemians  for 
discussion  of,  355;  accepted  by  Arch- 
bishop of  Prague,  357;  re-affirmed  by 
meeting  at  Caslav,  363 
Prague,  University  of,  its  foundation,  66, 
67,  in,  112;  diversity  of  "nations" 
at,  67,  68 ;  its  fame,  68 ;  sends  envoys 
to  Pisa,  99 ;  division  between  Germans 
and  Bohemians  in  as  regarded  the 
question  of  neutrality  during  the 
church  schism,  101,  102,  103;  some 
of  its  members  accuse  the  "  Wycliff- 
ites "  to  King  Venceslas,  102,  103; 
the  king's  famous  decree  conferring 
increased  privileges  on  the  Bohemian 
members,  105,  106;  departure  of 
German  students  from,  109,  no; 
becomes  a  national  university,  113;  ap- 
peals against  the  burning  of  Wycliffe's 
works,  122;  document  forwarded  by 
to  the  Bohemian  synod,  171,  172; 
begs  Hus  to  remain  in  Bohemia,  185; 
helps  to  defray  expense  of  Hus's 
journey  to  Constance,  185;  sends 
representative  to  Council,  208;  Hus's 
farewell  letter  to,  273,  274;  meeting 
of  chief  theologians  of  to  formulate 
Hussite  doctrine,  343;  sends  repre- 
sentative to  meeting  of  contending 
Hussites,  363 


Pragucrs,  see  Calixtines 

Predestination,   Hus's  opinion  on,   200, 

201,  253 
Pribislav,  Castle,  attacked  by  Zizka,  365 
Prokop  the  Great,  and  Prokop  the  Less, 

successors  of  Zizka,  365;    the  former 

at  Council  of  Basle,   366;    leader  of 

Taborites  at  Lipany,  367 
Protiva,  informer  against  Hus,  114,  115, 

119,  120,  140 
"  Provisions,"  papal,  13,  28 

Ranco,  Adalbert,  reformer,  32,  42,  43, 
44;  becomes  rector  of  the  University 
of  Paris,  44 ;  reports  on  Milic's  ortho- 
doxy, as  Canon  of  Prague,  44;  pro- 
nounces funeral  oration  on  the 
Emperor  Charles,  45;  his  fame  as  a 
preacher,  45;  his  letter  concerning 
frequent  communions,  45,  46;  pro- 
tests against  the  new  festival  in  honour 
of  the  Virgin,  46;  his  death,  47;  at 
Prague  when  Hus  was  a  student,  71 

Replica  Contra  Pradicatorem  Plznensem, 
by  Hus,  204 

Rome,  autocratic  tendencies  of,  first 
checked  by  Hussite  movement,  3 

Rudolph  II.,  King  of  Bohemia,  struggle 
with  his  brother,  371;  signs  the 
"  Letter  of  Majesty,"  371 

Rupert,  Elector  Palatine,  elected  King 
of  the  Romans,  73,  101 ;  his  successor, 
137 

Ruthenians,  Jerome  of  Prague's  connec- 
tion with,  326,  331 

Sacrament,  in  both  kinds,  1,2;  customary 
in  Bohemia,  10  (see  utraquism) ;  ad- 
ministration of  by  unworthy  priests, 
3;  views  of  Hus  upon,  119,  120,  179; 
question  of  frequent  communion,  37, 
41;  Ranco's  letter  upon,  45,  46; 
Matthew  of  Janov's  views  on,  50,  56, 
57,  61,  62;  Hus's  adoption  of  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  205; 
218,  222 
Sermones  de  Sanctis,  by  Hus,  316 
Sigismund,  King  of  the  Romans,  after- 
wards Emperor,  137;  ready  to  employ 
any  means  to  injure  his  brother.  King 
Venceslas,  179;  his  negotiations  with 
Pope  John  XXIII.  concerning  a 
general  council,  181;  decides  that  it 
shall  be  held  at  Constance,  183;  pro- 
mises Hus  a  safe-conduct  to  Constance 
and  back,  184;  his  part  in  Hus's 
arrest,  219;  his  feigned  displeasure, 
220;  remonstrances  sent  to,  by  the 
Bohemian  lords,  220;  neglects  their 
warning  letter,  221 ;  his  arrival  in 
Constance,  224,  225;  his  neglect  of 
Hus,  226;    refuses  the  pope's  offered 


396 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 


bribe,  226;  conciliates  the  council, 
227;  neglects  opportunity  of  releasing 
Hus,  229,  230;  pronounces  imperial 
ban  against  Duke  Frederick,  230;  his 
treachery  to  Hus,  236;  remonstrances 
addressed  to,  by  Bohemian  nobles. 
239,  242;  revokes  all  letters  of  safe- 
conduct,  242 ;  determines  that  Hu^ 
shall  not  return  to  Bohemia,  244, 
246;  his  feigned  indignation  with  the 
council,  246;  Hus's  answer  to  the 
Cardinal  of  Cambray  increases  his 
anger  against  the  reformer,  252;  his 
words  to  Hus  after  the  latter's  speech 
about  unworthy  kings,  255;  urges 
Hus  to  recant  for  his  own  political 
purposes,  257,  260,  261;  his  address  to 
the  council,  259,  260;  receives  further 
remonstrances  from  Bohemia,  260; 
his  treachery  referred  to  by  Hus,  263; 
is  present  at  Hus's  final  trial  and  con- 
demnation, 277,  279;  orders  the  Count 
Palatine  to  lead  Hus  to  the  stake,  283; 
indignation  against,  in  Bohemia,  291, 
292,  337;  discussion  of  his  treachery. 
290,  291;  hatred  of  Bohemians 
towards,  291,  292;  hostilities  with 
King  of  Poland,  307;  covert  threat  to 
by  Bohemian  nobles,  338;  his  letters 
to  Venceslas  and  Queen  Sophia  con- 
cerning heresy,  etc.,  340,  341;  heir  to 
the  throne  of  Bohemia,  347;  his 
temporising  policy  after  his  brother's 
death,  348;  appoints  Queen  Sophia 
regent  of  Bohemia,  348;  his  answer  to 
the  demands  of  the  Bohemian  envoys, 
349i  35° ;  persuades  the  pope  to  declare 
a  crusade  against  Bohemia,  350;  his 
cruelty  to  John  Krasa,  351;  crosses 
into  Bohemia,  352;  marches  to  Kutna 
Hora,  352;  his  ungracious  reception 
of  the  envoys  from  Prague,  352; 
attacks  Prague  and  is  repulsed,  354; 
attempts  to  relieve  the  castle  of 
Vysehrad,  355;  his  defeat,  355,  356; 
returns  from  Bohemia,  356;  his  de- 
position pronounced  by  Bohemia,  363; 
reattacks  Bohemia  and  defeated  by 
Zizka,  363;  enters  into  negotiations 
with  the  Hussites,  366;  recognised  as 
king  by  the  Bohemians,  368;  his  short 
reign  and  death  at  Prague,  368 
Simon,  Cardinal  of  Rheims,  begs  Arch- 
bishop   Conrad    to    extirpate    heresy, 

179 

Simony,  universal  in  Bohemia,  170; 
horror  of  a  chief  cause  of  the  religious 
upheaval,  187;  Hus's  treatise  on,  170. 
T87;  summary  of,  188-195;  Hus's 
closing  words,  195,  196;  his  letter  to 
King  of  Poland  concerning,  307,  308; 
317 


Slav  and  Teuton,  racial  animosity 
between,  295,  304,  305 

Sophia,  wife  of  King  Venceslas,  76; 
appoints  Hus  her  confessor,  82; 
strongly  supports  his  party,  105; 
writes  to  the  pope  on  behalf  of  freedom 
of  preaching,  128;  further  remon- 
strance from,  130;  her  influence  over 
the  king,  182;  her  fervent  adherence 
to  Hus,  302;  her  indignation  at  the 
treatment  meted  to  him,  337;  letter 
from  Sigismund  to,  341;  appointed 
regent  of  Bohemia,  348;  calls  German 
mercenaries  to  her  aid  against  the 
Taborites,  348 

"  Spitalske  Pole"  (Spitalfield),  great 
meeting  of  Hussites  at,  364 

Stanislas  of  Znoymo,  sent  as  envoy  to 
Pisa,  99;  arrested  by  order  of  Cardinal 
Cossa,  and  subsequently  liberated, 
99,  100;  opponent  of  Hus,  140;  at 
the  disputation  concerning  the  sale 
of  indulgences,  151;  at  church  con- 
ference in  Prague,  173;  his  panegyric 
of  the  papal  power,  and  Hus's  answer 
to,  206;   his  death,  213 

Stokes,  John,  English  envoy,  his  dispute 
with  Hus,  146,  147,  165;  at  Hus's 
trial,  249 

Stransky,  Paul,  Bohemian  exile,  10 

Super  IV.  Sententiarum  by  Hus,  90,  91, 
310,  316,  317 

Synod,  Bohemian,  168,  170;  proceedings 
at,  i7r-i73;  failure  of  to  restore  peace, 
173 

Taborites,  the,  344,  345;  democratic 
character  of  Taborite  movement, 
346;  they  march  on  Prague,  348; 
build  their  stronghold  of  Tabor,  349; 
march  to  the  help  of  Prague,  353; 
repulse  the  enemy,  354 ;  their  doctrines 
as  distinguished  from  those  of  Hus  and 
the  Calixtines,  358;  opposed  to  the 
hierarchy  of  the  Roman  Church,  358, 
359;  their  political  principles,  359; 
downfall  of  community  after  the 
battle  of  Lipany,  359;  their  fanaticism 
pernicious  to  the  cause  of  reform,  361 ; 
Pribram's  work  on,  361;  Zizka  joins 
the  extreme  party,  363;  wage  war 
with  the  Calixtine  party,  364;  their 
victories  over,  364;  truce  with,  364; 
march  under  Zizka  against  Moravia, 
365 ;  adopt  the  name  of  "  Orphans  " 
after  his  death,  365;  their  defeat  by 
the  nobles  at  Lipany,  367 

Tannenberg,  victory  of  King  Vladislav 
at,  305 

Teuton  (see  Slav) 

Thomas  of  Stitny,  reformer.  29,  32,  38, 
39;    his  views  as  given  in  his  work 


INDEX 


397 


Of  General  Christian  Matters,   39,  40, 
41;     his   Learned   Entertainments,    42, 
43;   falls  out  of  touch  with  the  leaders 
of  the  reform  movement,  43;   his  use 
as  a  writer  of  the  national  language,  43 ; 
his  death,  43 
Tiem,    Venceslas,    Dean   of   Passau,    his 
traffic  in  indulgences,  150;    his  desire 
to  revenge  himself  on  Hus,  213 
"  Toleranz  Patent  "  of  Joseph  II.,  10 
Transubstantiation,  Hus's  acceptance  of, 
and  argument  on,  with  D'Ailly  at  his 
trial,  248,  2  49 

Ulrich  of  Rosenberg,  leader  of  the 
Romanist  party,  368 

Utraquism,  or  communion  in  both  kinds, 
56,  61,  62;  its  introduction  at  Prague, 
232;  influence  of  this  on  Hus's  fate, 
232,  233;  decree  against  by  the 
council,  266,  267;  becomes  the  watch- 
word of  the  Hussite  Church,  267; 
Hus's  letter  on  the  subject,  268,  269; 
outbreaks  in  Prague  concerning,  343, 
346,  347,  34S 

Utraquists,  their  attitude  towards  the 
Church  of  Rome,  356,  357;  retrograde 
policy  of,  368,  369;  adopt  some  of 
Luther's  views,  370 

Vencelas,  King,  college  founded  by.  at 
Prague,  70,  73 ;  his  kindness  to  Hus, 
82;  his  action  as  regards  the  Schism, 
99;  sends  envoys  to  Pisa,  99,  100; 
sends  further  envoy,  101 ;  his  willing- 
ness to  remain  neutral,  10 1,  102; 
complaints  made  to  him  of  the  "  Wv- 
cliffites  "  at  Prague ;  his  angry  words 
to  Hus  and  Jerome,  103,  104;  receives 
French  embassy,  104;  his  change  of 
feeUng  and  famous  decree  of  Kutna 
Hora,  105;  further  decree  forbidding 
allegiance  to  Pope  Gregory,  106,  107; 
his  answer  to  the  remonstrance  of 
the  German  students,  107-109;  urges 
moderation  on  Zbynek,  124;  continues 
to  extend  protection  to  Hus,  128; 
writes  to  the  pope  concerning  the 
Bohemian  controversy,  128;  remon- 
strates with  pope  on  behalf  of  Hus, 
130;  reasons  for  his  not  being  elected 
King  of  the  Romans,  137;  orders 
confiscation  of  the  archbishop's  pro- 
perty to  refund  the  value  of  books 
burnt,  138,  139;  he  is  chosen  as  arbi- 
trator between  Hus  and  the  arch- 
bishop, 141;  his  court  physician  made 
archbishop,  147;  endeavours  to 
mediate  between  Hus  and  the  Roman 
party,  154,  155;  forbids  any  participa- 
tion in  street  riots  on  pain  of  death, 
155;   he  and  the  queen  persuade  Hus 


to  leave  Prague  lor  a  while,  163,  164; 
his  efforts  at  conciliating  the  hostile 
parties,  168,  169;  summons  synod  to 
meet,  170;  his  disappointment  at  its 
failure,  173;  calls  another  conference, 
1 7^ ;  his  anger  with  Palec  and  sentence 
of  banishment  against,  175;  fears  his 
treacherous  brother  Sigismund,  179; 
his  popularity,  182;  suspected  of 
heresy,  182;  his  representative  not 
allowed  a  hearing  at  the  Council  of 
Constance,  208;  his  speech  on  hearing 
of  Hus's  execution,  292;  his  dis- 
pleasure with  his  brother  and  the 
Bohemian  priests,  337;  refuses  to 
join  the  confederative  nobles,  339; 
loses  his  popularity  and  determines 
to  send  to  Sigismund  for  aid,  346; 
hears  of  disturbance  at  Prague,  seized 
with  apoplexy  and  dies,  347 

Venceslas,  Lord,  of  Duba,  or  Lestna, 
friend  of  Hus,  214,  216;  his  visit  to 
him  in  prison,  235,  236;  appeals  to 
Sigismund  on  his  behalf,  246;  over- 
hears Sigismund's  speech  to  the 
council,  258;  his  visit  and  speech  to 
Hus  in  prison,  276.  277 

Vladislav,  King  of  Poland,  Hus  estab- 
lishes relations  with,  304,  305;  his 
victory  over  the  army  of  the  Teutonic 
order,  305 ;  Hus's  letters  to,  306,  307, 
308;  at  war  with  King  of  Hungary, 
307;  his  ambassadors  at  the  Council 
of  Constance  endeavour  to  save  Hus, 
309;  offered  the  crown  of  Bohemia, 
309 

Vladislav,  Prince  of  Poland,  King  of 
Bohemia,  369,  370 

Vlasim,  Ocko  of,  Archbishop  of  Prague, 
30;  his  distress  at  proceedings  being 
taken  against  Milic,  36 

Vok,  Lord,  of  Waldstein  organises 
grotesque  procession  through  streets 
of  Prague,  153,  154;  Jerome  of 
Prague's  part  in,  325 

Vyklady,  expositions  by  Hus,  186,  310, 
315,  317 

Vysehrad,  castle  of,  seized  by  citizens 
of  Prague,  348;  besieged  by  the  Hus- 
sites, 355;  Sigismund  defeated  near, 
355,  356 

Waldhauser,  Conrad,  Augustine  monk, 
effect  of  his  preaching  in  Prague,  23, 
24;  comes  into  collision  with  the 
mendicant  friars,  24;  summoned  to 
appear  before  the  archiepiscopal 
court,  25;  declines  the  legate's  sum- 
mons to  a  disputation,  2.5,  26;  his 
reply  to  his  accusers,  26;  King 
Charles's  favour  towards,  26,  27;  his 
death,  27 


398 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HUS 


White  Mountain,  see  Bila  Hora 

Wiche,  Richard,  his  letter  to  Hus,  134, 
135 

William  of  Occam,  5 ;  his  views  concern- 
ing the  secular  power  of  the  pope,  9 

Wilsnack,  Hus  sent  to  investigate  the 
supposed  miracles  performed  at,  82-84 

Witold,  Duke  of  Lithuania,  elected 
King  of  Bohemia,  363 

Women  of  Bohemia,  their  joining  in 
church  singing  derided  by  the  prelacy, 
302;  their  resentment  at  the  evil  life 
of  the  latter,  302;  their  fervent  ad- 
herence to  Hus,  302 

Wycliffe,  indebtedness  of  Hus  to  exagge- 
rated, 18-22,  117,  118;  Hus  studies 
his  works,  79;  Hiibner's  "articles" 
against,  80;  translation  of  work  of 
his  by  Hus,  89;  strange  tale  concern- 
ing, 117;  his  writings  burnt,  122,  125; 
all  his  works  declared  heretical,  169; 
pronouncement  of  Council  of  Constance 
against,  238;  endeavours  made  to 
prove  Hus's  identity  of  views  with 
at  the  former's  trial,  250,  255,  256; 
his  character  compared  with  that  of 
Hus,  299 

Zabarella,  Cardinal,  appointed  to 
examine  Hus,  237;   at  Hus's  trial,  280 

Zbynek,  Archbishop  of  Prague,  81;  his 
efforts  to  improve  the  moral  conduct 
of  the  clergy,  81,  82;  appoints  Hus 
preacher  to  the  synod,  82;  appoints 
him  to  inquire  into  the  Holy  Blood  of 
Wilsnack,  82;  becomes  less  friendly 
to  Hus,  86;  letter  from  Hus  to,  86,  87; 
supporter  of  the  rival  Pope  Gregory, 
102;  signs  a  decree  against  Hus,  103; 
opposes  the  king's  wishes,  and  retires 


from  Prague,  115;  brings  further 
accusations  against  Hus,  118,  119; 
his  embassy  to  Alexander  V.,  121;  in 
accordance  with  papal  bull  orders 
destruction  of  Wycliffe's  works  and 
forbids  heretical  preaching,  122,  123; 
burns  the  books  and  excommunicates 
Hus,  125;  ordered  by  king  to  refund 
the  value  of  the  books  and  refuses, 
138 ;  some  of  his  property  confiscated, 
138;  places  Prague  under  an  interdict, 
139;  thinks  it  politic  to  make  peace 
with  the  king,  141;  his  dispute  with 
Hus  is  settled  by  arbitration,  141,  142, 
143;  renewed  bitterness  between,  143; 
retires  from  Prague,  144;  his  threaten- 
ing letter  to  the  king,  and  death,  145 

Zdenek  of  Laboun,  Provost  of  All  Saints, 
royal  commissioner  at  the  church  con- 
ference in  Prague,  173,  174 

Zizka,  John,  of  Trocnov,  221,  335;  leads 
attack  on  town  hall  of  Prague,  347; 
leads  the  Taborites  against  Prague, 
348;  to  the  help  of  Prague,  353,  354; 
his  political  and  religious  views,  359; 
his  devotion  to  Hus's  memory,  359; 
defeats  Sigismund  at  Nebovid,  363; 
joins  the  extreme  Taborites,  363; 
defeats  the  Calixtines  at  Horic,  364; 
and  at  Kralove  Hradec  and  Malesov, 
364;  at  the  meeting  at  "  Spitalske 
pole,"  364,  365;  leads  the  united 
Hussites  on  a  last  campaign,  365; 
marches  against  Moravia,  is  attacked 
by  plague  and  dies,  365 

Zmrzhk,  Peter,  meeting  of  contending 
Hussites  in  house  of,  362,  363 

Zrcadlo  Hrichuv  (Mirror  of  Sin)  by  Hus, 
186 


THE    TEMPLE    PRESS,    PRINTERS,    LETCHWORTH 


Date  Due 


'^~~^r 


— 


*43JBjf|pW?**^j^ 


l] 


«fe  9f6  1ft 


* 


^ 


/H 


J- 


BW2116.L94 

The  life  &  times  of  Master  John  Hus, 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00016  6621 


